CNN Co-Founder Blames Nets Ratings Drop on Obama Haters
By Don | June 10, 2009
CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld blames the drop in CNN's audience on people who detest Barack Obama.
From the Huffington Post
Nine years ago, when FoxNews sprinted past CNN to become America's number one news network, I attributed its ratings gains to the election of George Bush and the triumph of Fox-watching conservatives. I figured conservatives would be savoring their victory while liberals were averting their eyes in disgust. For the next eight years, I measured political sentiment in the United States by comparing the size of the FoxNews audience with the combined size of the CNN/MSNBC audience. In this space, I even predicted, with reasonable accuracy, the percent by which Barack Obama won the election based on the split in the news audience.
Now, seven months after Barack Obama's victory, CNN's ratings have gone down the drain. From May of last year to May of this year, CNN lost 22% of its total primetime audience. MSNBC was down 2%, while FoxNews was up 24%. In the key advertising demographic (25-54), Fox was up 31%, CNN was down 37% and MSNBC was down 26%. In hard numbers, Fox had 109,000 more viewers than last year while CNN lost 113,000. CNN averaged fewer than 200,000 25-54 viewers in primetime. Even MSNBC averaged more viewers than that.
Total day was nearly as bad, with Fox up 24% and CNN down 7%. MSNBC was down 2% in total viewing. Fox is beating CNN almost two-to-one in most categories.
There's no need to throw any more numbers at you--Fox is gaining, CNN is wilting. Why is this happening when the country still seems about 58-42 in favor of Obama? My best guess is the passion of those who detest Democrats, liberals, and in particular, Barack Obama.
Conservatives seem so angry at their loss, so ready to blame Obama for all their problems that almost 400,000 more of them are watching FoxNews this year than they did last year. I think they turn to Fox for comfort and confirmation. They need to hear the ranters and ravers tell them that it's not their fault, it's all because of those "Socialist Democrats." I have believed for years that it's "comfort and confirmation" that drove conservatives to talk radio. Now it's television, too.
I had thought better of the television audience, particularly younger viewers who tended to watch CNN and MSNBC. But even that's gone now--Fox leads in 18-49 year-olds.
Here are the best excuses I can think of: maybe a lot of middle-of-the-roaders have just tuned out on all the cable news noise. Maybe other people have better things to do with their lives than listen to pandering pundits. Maybe more generous souls accept that Obama's doing the best he can in a very tough job, and they don't want to hear the details because they know the stars are not shining on America right now.
But, then again, maybe all of the above are wrong. Maybe it's simply the need for an enemy, the desire to detest is greater than the power to tolerate; maybe it's the need to blame somebody else for the bad things that are happening in our lives that drives viewers to Fox. Perhaps those viewers are the next generation of the rich socialites in the old New Yorker cartoon, who dressed up to go to the newsreel theatre and hiss FDR. Only now they can do it at home, watching FoxNews. Maybe the joy of defeat is underestimated.
Schonfeld seems particularly frustrated that the liberal cable new network that he helped create has fallen so out of favor in a time of liberal political dominance that he overlooks the key reason for CNN's ratings failure is its liberal bias. Even though CNN has tried to redefine itself as being in the center the bias is still there and hasn't fooled the viewers who have abandoned the network in droves.
Post #2107
29 Comments | Post a Comment
Who? What? Where? When? Why?
Try reporting the actual news instead of the fairy tales CNN has been spinning. Quit being so biased and try some honesty in your reporting.
Integrity could take the lion’s share of the market, but right now, Fox is the closest to that description and they aren’t that close.
What a bunch of whiners. I believe the fact Fox was soaring over CNN nine years ago had nothing to do with Obama, considering the fact he wasn’t even a blip on the radar.
Perhaps the American majority gravitates towards FoxNews because it’s actual NEWS, as opposed to a bunch of liberals slobbering all over Obama. Did the co-founder of CNN ever think of that? No, of course not. That would be too simple, and, oh, honest.
Or maybe, just maybe, Reese Schonfeld, your analysis of the right is all wrong. Maybe,just maybe, people are waking up to the fact that the statist media do not report reality.
Or maybe, just maybe, Reese Schonfeld, it is the democrats that are, heaven forfend, wrong in their basic world view.
Nah. Couldn’t be. Everyone knows that to believe in individual rights instead of class rights, is evil.
Maybe the networks decline has to do with people like Rick Sanchez,Paul Begala, James Carville,Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferity. The one show I watch is Lou Dobbs not a bias show. Time for changes.
Schonfeld doesn’t get it. I used to watch a mix of cable news channels but the reporting in Spring 2008 became so pro-obama is was enough to make you sick. I wanted to see both sides of an argument or issue and CNN, MSNBC and the networks just threw their weight to one side. Never an opposing viewpoint or they just would parade out Gergin as the “republican” side when we know he is this only by title.
I don’t watch CNN because it doesn’t give me unbiased information in a form that appeals to me as a viewer. Their reporting is biased in an obvious manner and I find that condescending and unappealing. Their analysis and opinion programs are heavily biased in a leftward direction and that does not make for a balanced presentation, one where both sides of an issue can be fairly represented. We have political ads for propaganda during election season. We don’t need it from news outlets purporting to present information, especially between elections, when pushing an agenda is the only possible motive.
Does this guy really believe what he is spouting, or is he a typical lib, ignoring facts and truth and attacking everyone who won’t join him? With these people, it can be difficult to tell. Leftist leader or useful idiot…you make the call!
I simply am unable to watch CNN because they don’t report, they just offer their opinions and preface every question with a 2 minute conditional/qualifier before it’s uttered. And Larry King?...Please. Why is he still on Television at all? And their Website? Today’s question: Are you tired of Social Networking, yes or no…how about other option: who gives a #### in the place?
I have seen CNN out of Europe and the bais is the same from Rosemary Church as it is from Wolf Blitzer. It runs to the fabric of the management and will not change until the audience all but disappears. Their excuses only make them even more pathetic.
Fox News is gaining because it reports the news. It is a conservative network but, unlike CNN and MSNBC, it allows the liberal left to come on and debate. Also, unlike CNN and MSNBC, it’s reporters don’t insult and attack the politicians and the families of the politicians that is disagrees with.
CNN has biased reporting,with the likes of Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown. They have been great propogandists for Obama, as has MSNBC’s Chris “Tingly Leg” Matthews and Keith,“Roaring Rat” Olberman. Those two have to be two of the most biased, left wing, demogagues who ever plagued the airwaves. On top of that, Olberman has the added defect of being a moron, with the emotional maturity of a third grader.
Is it just me or does it seem that CNN is trying really hard to be BBC? with the new screen format and abundance of British reporters
Schoenfeld must realize that there are people who are working for Time Warner and also for News Corp. These people are Chip Caray, Bernard Goldberg, Dick Stockton, Larry McReynolds, Kyle Petty, Adam Lashinsky, Pam Oliver, Nina Easton, Frank Caliendo, Ralph Sheheen, Bill Webber, Matt Yocum, Jane Hall, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer. Another person to be aware of is Clark Howard who has sold his soul of cheapness to those sleazeballs at Time Warner.
Schonfeld’s article seems to be an example of a typical liberal temper tantrum, in a sense. The idea seems to be to blame anything or anyone but themselves and their own agenda and to have no introspection and humility at all. Truth and common sense are often avoided or denied legitimacy in articles like these. CNN and MSNBC have seemed to become much more liberal opinion channels than objective news channels, for the most part. Fox, on the other hand, appears to give more objective coverage of news, and that is what appeals to more people.
People naturally want to form their own opinions from objective facts, rather than have subtle opinion pumped at them repeatedly through biased spin and opinion. The steady drumbeat of left-wing opinion has the effect of dumbing down the message and appealing to the more base tendencies of some to jump on the ridiculous and pointless Bush-hating, America-bashing bandwagons. What could possibly be gained by this, except to try to dupe the less-aware and the emotion-driven viewers into voting for liberal politicians?
The panel discussions on Fox offer intellectual analysis head and shoulders above the childlike name-calling and ranting of so-called journalists at CNN and MSNBC. While it’s true that there are more conservatives on Fox, I believe that it’s a simple fact that conservative views resonate much more and simply make sense to many more people.
Mainstream America is center-right, doesn’t “hate” as the media often attempt to allege, and holds dear many solid conservative values. These are values that founded this country but have more recently been under attack and distorted. The majority of the American population won’t stand to have their values attacked, villified or marginalized as “far right” by the polarizing forces of the left. The only “agenda” of true conservatives is the preservation of the values that gave this country its strength and freedom. No one wants to hear this country bashed and twisted through whining liberal media.
I pretty much gave up television nearly ten years ago so the few occasions I had to view MSNBC and CNN during the 2008 Presidential campaign came as a real culture shock. The blatant, overwhelming pro-Obama and anti-Republican bias was positively nauseating. Things like non-stop “negative” factoids about the Republican party in the text crawls during the “coverage” of the Republican convention were unmistakable. And I’ll never forget the way the “news” bunny “reporting” election returns made the off-hand and almost unremarked comment, almost in passing, “This just in, John McCain has taken Mississippi” as they cut to an Obama headquarters in Pennsylvania.
Bias? The old Soviet Union’s press was less obviously biased than MSNBC and CNN!
MAYBE PEOPLE ARE NOT WATCHING BECAUSE THEY HAD TO DROP THE EXPENSIVE CABLE OR DISH.I THINK ALL TV SHOULD BE FREE. AFTER ALL THE ADVERTIZERS WANT TO REACH MORE PEOPLE.IF YOU WANT ME AND MY FAMILY TO WATCH CNN THEN MAKE IT FREE TV.
Whether it’s on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or local TV news - - I get sick and tired of seeing and listenting to the absolutely silly “personal” interactions among and between the commentators - and ALL the networks are guilty of putting some really supercilious nincompoops on-air.
PLUS - none of them do “news” anymore! For “news”, you can just turn the sound off - and read the crawl at the bottom of the screen! EVERYTHING is about this goofy “personal communication” and “personal touch” stuff - and touchy-feely goofballism!
I wouldn’t get into naming names - but I really do believe some of the on-air personalities, on ALL networks, are among some of the dimmest bulbs I’ve ever come across anywhere!
As they said way back in 1950 - in the age of the Dumont and GE TV Networks - all TV programming is designed to appeal to the average 12-year-old.
If anything, it’s been creeping lower!
You’re not mistaken about the dim bulbs. Science classes don’t appear to be a requirement for a Journalism major.
My favorite memory is the news bunny who reported with a straight face several years ago the discovery by some astronomers of a new planet “in the upper atmosphere over the weekend.” She never did understand why the master control operators were practically falling out of their chairs with laughter.
This is not exactly an accurate report. No one likes haters. Most people just want an accurate reporting of the news, or they follow a like minded commentator. Commentators that disregard or mock opposing opinions would only have one sided followers. Fox is the only network who tries to still report the news in balance and who’s commentators aren’t afraid of opposing views. You can get the real ratings here… Every Fox show beats out CNN & MSNBC “combined”.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/
What CNN has going for it however, is that they don’t have the likes of Matthews, Olbermann or Maddow. Too bad they let Beck go. Seems he’s doing fine on Fox though.
All CNN has is Andersen Cooper. Jack Cafferty, Wolf"gang the Communist Scum” Blitzer, Larry King, John King, the traitorous Kirian Chetry, Lou Dobbs, the soon to be hired Joy Behar, along with the HLN folks of Clark Howard (who, IMO, will his send his WSB AM colleagues Neal Boortz and Herman Cain up the river when Dr. Gupta pumps Howard full of scopolamine or sodium pentothal in the near future.), Nancy Grace, and Jane Velez Mitchell.
Impressive lineup that is not matching the ratings at all.
Fox, CNN and MSNBC - unless there’s some kind of “disaster” somewhere - don’t do “news”; they do “features” - feature-type stories that are not far removed from what “E! Entertainment” does.
And, of course, their “best” feature stories are typically all about the kind of stuff one sees and hears on the so-called “reality TV shows”.
And, I guess it might have been canceled this past week - but was there EVER a more dumbed-down, more esoteric, more effete, more asinine and more useless “news” (or even supposedly “news-related”) program than “Red Eye” on Fox News? I doubt it.
It seems like it’s all about these networks becoming “more internetty” (e.g., simple-minded, superfluous, supercilious)!
They’ve become variations on “Showbiz Tonight”, TMZ, E! - “gossip networks” or “soap opera infotainment”.
I do not think that the author of this article has even the slightest clue of the massive amount of conservatives growing in the nation. It is my observation that John Q. Public, who works hard every day and pays his taxes and puts his kids through college and pays for multifarious living expenditures in an exceedingly difficult economy is getting particularly tired of paying for welfare handouts that democrats love to give to people who just don’t feel like working (or paying their debts or taxes).
People are starting to realize that the liberal perspective, which holds that everything can be solved by a massive influx of cash, is not working. Giving 11-digit surpluses to companies that already don’t work (i.e. GM) is a band-aid, not a cure; and massive hundred-billion-dollar stimuli don’t work either (for those of you who are now convinced I am a die-hard republican, I did not support Bush’s agenda, as insinuated above). The capitalist economy is autonomous; it will weed out the companies that don’t function efficiently. What happened to Packard, American Motors, and Studebaker? They tanked because of inefficiency of operation; other companies did things better, faster, cheaper. A Chapter 11 is the best thing for the nation’s failing corporations and industries. Getting rid of labor unions, which pay $75 dollars and hour for monkeys to turn wrenches is a HUGE incentive. Ditch-diggers make more than architects now…isn’t there something wrong with that?
It is only a matter of time before the American public, along with the rest of the world, realizes that the liberal agenda, which is a mild form of communism (in which the government takes what you make and shares it evenly with everyone; rocket scientists and janitors alike), is doomed to failure…and the epiphany is beginning.
This is why CNN, MSNBC, and ,eventually, the democratic majority and the Obama administration, will fall drastically in approval in the years to come as policies fail and collapse begins. Mark my words.
Re: Post 23;
According to a poll I heard discussed just last night on Fox News ...
21% of Americans describe themselves as “liberal”;
40% of Americans describe themselves as “conservative”;
39% of Americans describe themselves as “neither”.
Obviously, the 39% “swing vote” is the key, here. (But - most of the entertainment media appears to be “libertine” (i.e., anything goes) - and Pop Culture seems to be fueled by that entertainment media, i.e., Pop Culture is “libertine”.)
And, additionally, right now, about ...
23% of registered voters are registered as “Republican”;
35% of registered voters are registered as “Democratic”;
5% of registered voters are registered to one of the recognized “third parties”;
37% of registered voters are registered as “Independent” or “Non-Affiliated”.
Again, the 37% “swing vote” is key.
AND, looking at the numbers here, while 40% of Americans call themselves “conservative” - only 23% of registered voters are registered as “Republican”.
AND, while only 21% of Americans call themselves “liberal” - 35% of registered voters are registered as “Democratic”.
Therefore, those describing themselves as “liberals” and “conservatives” DO NOT CONSISTENTLY TRACK WITH voter registrations as “Democrats” and “Republicans” respectively - - although the group describing themselves as “neither” liberal nor conservative (39%) - - and the group registered to vote as “Independent” or “Non-Affiliated” (37%) are PRETTY SIMILAR IN SIZE.
Of course, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” may mean drastically different things to different people - and both terms are more often defined subjectively, depending on who is doing the defining, rather than by their classical political philosophy-based definitions. And, of course, the terms are typically used differently in Europe and Canada than they are in the U.S.
Personally, I believe entertainment media has had more to do with the decline of traditionalism in America and in American politics than has the various news or politically-oriented media. Politics (and the law) REFLECTS the society and culture within which it exists, rather than DEFINING the society and culture within which it exists.
However, they do say the political and socio-cultural pendulums swing back and forth, left-to-right, right-to-left.
RE: RE: Post 23
In short, I agree. The defining of the terms liberal and conservative involves a vast amount of one’s subjectivity, and is in no way bound or affiliated strictly to US parties including Democrats and Republicans; however, I believe that in our present state of history, these words become iconic, an instant representation of their associated political groups. It is not my intention to insinuate absolute correlation between liberality and the democratic individual; I am merely using them loosely, as is the case, generally, in the word today.
As far as your gathered statistics are concerned, the paradox of a conservative vote majority and an undeniably liberal President is indeed linked to the “swing voters:” the conservative body of the American public today is linked to the wealthy, well-established demographic of the population. The less wealthy demographic has shown, overwhelmingly, general laziness, as is evident by the seemingly systematic increasing number of welfare, food stamp etc. recipients, taking after those who have set a precedent for successfully seeking the easy way out and taking advantage of the government, rather than earning a higher standard of living. This group is also less plentiful, and thus, so are the closely-related liberals;
Which brings me to the “swing voters.” These voters have historically voted in favor of the party opposite of then presiding Presidents associated with unfavorable events or actions (clear examples: President Bush after the Clinton scandals, Carter after Nixon’s criminal activities, FDR after Hoover with the Great Depression). This has been the case with the 2008 election: the 37% group of “swing voters” acted against the events of the past few years, specifically the disapproval with how Bush handled the War on Terror and the state of the economy at the time of election. All of this was amplified by the primary election of a less than competent Republican Presidential candidate.
This trend has become more and more apparent as the American public has become less and less educated when it comes to the policies and state of the United States government, as well as the foreign image of the country. It is because of these historic, and in some ways very predictable, election results that I have come to know this group of electorates not as the “swing voters,” but as the “consequential voters.”
Again I do wish to express my apologies for any confusion. I do not wish to render the liberal and democratic agenda inseparable; this has just been the gradual metamorphosis by the living English Dictionary, and is entirely consequential of political movements of the 20th century.
Re: Post 25;
I’m pretty much in agreement with nearly all of what you posted in #25 - and - I think the idea of “consequential voters”, given the current status of the media-driven American culture, is right on the mark! And, because he cannot possibly remedy all the long-developing difficulties currently being faced in the U.S. over such a short span as the next 3 3/4 years - I think these “consequential (swing) voters” will actually elect whomever is running against Obama in 2012. (???)
RE: RE: Post 25
I agree with your prediction. There are many issues facing the United States; the combination of a growing resentment of American society by the world, a potentially apocalyptic threat by North Korea, a depreciating economy, as well as a strong presence of an increasingly anarchic, progressive media/entertainment influence is a recipe for disaster as far as the approval ratings for the Presidency are concerned. It is reasonable to infer that Washington will change hands from conservative to liberal and vice versa each election (Congressional and Presidential) until the American public considers monumental progress to have been made.
Therefore, it is probable that today’s impatient electorates will vote Obama out of the White House for the same justification as Bush. I also believe that whichever party controls Washington at the time of overall recovery, relating to the above issues, will be in favor for many years after, and thus will gain power and the majority. If this landslide gain of majority influence is tremendous enough, we may see the disappearance of the losing party.
Re: Post 27;
Your comment:
“...Therefore, it is probable that today’s impatient electorates will vote Obama out of the White House for the same justification as Bush. I also believe that whichever party controls Washington at the time of overall recovery, relating to the above issues, will be in favor for many years after, and thus will gain power and the majority. If this landslide gain of majority influence is tremendous enough, we may see the disappearance of the losing party…”
Agreed.
AND - just prior to and after the election - and, briefly, around the Inauguration, some DEMs were “inferring” that, considering the disarray and the “severely out of touch” elements evident in the GOP, the GOPs might not see themselves back in power for “the next 40 years” - “if the party even survives”.
Personally, and especially because the GOP is so fractured and is probably not going to overcome that problem quickly nor easily - - IF, IF, IF - - this economic meltdown is clearly on the mend, strongly, during early 2011 (which I think is likely) - if unemployment is in serious decline by then - if foreclosures and bankruptcies have declined - if some areas are again seeing house values appreciate - and if Obama should hit a real homerun in any one other area, e.g., healthcare, education, public works, international diplomacy, etc., I think he will be re-elected and, if that happens and IF he’s perceived as a moderating and stabilizing force, it may well be true that the DEMs will retain power for a long time - and the GOP as currently known may decline to little more than a third party catering to the far right. (???)
BUT - I think your idea that we may bounce back and forth between DEMs-GOPs for a few administrations until one party emerges as uniquely successful is probably more likely. I do think our current problems are to large, too complex and too long in the making for ANY president or party to resolve them during a single term.
I just turned off CNN and googled to see if I was the only one who thought that CNN was gaga over Obama. I have noticed it a lot and I have to say this was the worst! On a day where Iranians are trying to overthrow the Islamist government and the US president has said almost NOTHING of importance or strength to the world or Iranian people CNN still managed to put Obama-propaganda in the mix. Rather than remark how little he has said and the fact that other nations are now taking a lead over USA in being a global champion for democracy they actually pondered the question by asking/stating to- a guest, “Many people think Obama’s Cairo speech had something to do with the Iranian uprising…” BULL!!!! His Cairo speech was at best a big fat a*ss-kissing apology to Islamists! This election was to be contentious no matter what and who was in office—-I beg you stop them!!! I have now put FOX on. This is too sick for my taste!
June 10 at 9:09 am | #1 | Link
Maybe it’s because people detest a** kissing? I’ve tried to watch CNN with that dude in the afternoon….too much slobbering for me.