CNN’s Ratings Are SO LOW …
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Posted on | March 15, 2019
Ace of Spades calls attention to the latest cable-news ratings , as reported by @RoadMN on Twitter , and it really is astonishing how bad CNN ratings are. It’s not just the fact that Fox News is stomping the crap out of CNN in prime time where, for example, Tucker Carlson’s 8 p.m. ET audience (3.14 million viewers) is three times larger than Anderson Cooper’s (1.03 million). CNN’s ratings are so low that no show on the network rates higher than 28th in all cable news programming.
You see that the highest-rated hour on CNN (Chris Cuomo at 9 p.m. ET) has an audience of 1.11 million, which is not only dwarfed by Sean Hannity’s audience (3.3 million), but is also smaller than, for example, the 7 a.m. hour of Fox & Friends (1.47 million). The audience for CNN’s morning programming is microscopic — New Day , hosted by Alisyn Camerota and John Berman, gets barely half a million viewers.
How can words convey just how pathetic CNN’s numbers are? You’re talking about a national network, with anchors earning millions annually, supported by a vast staff of reporters, producers, editors and technicians. And at 8 a.m. ET, Camerota and Berman are viewed by an audience of 567,000. By comparison, Olivia Jade Giannulli, the vapid airhead whose mother cheated to get her into college , has 1.9 million YouTube subscribers. That’s right — this idiot teenager can post a makeup tutorial that gets more than twice the viewers of CNN’s New Day .
CNN has no viable commercial purpose. There are many YouTube channels with larger audiences — PewDiePie routinely gets 4 million views . If a Swedish comedian on YouTube is four times more popular than your cable-news network, the word for this is failure .
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
405 visitors
I think the Mueller Report was the final nail in the coffin. A lot of people have been let down and misled.
Out with the trash.
This sort of article is quite misleading. On the one hand we have the pov of Fox News (conservative) . On the other hand we have TWO channels that offer themselves as an alternative to Fox (CNN and MSNBC). While CNN is less openly "liberal" than MSNBC is, it is true they are not really a straight news channel anymore (that would be CBS N, a streaming channel that does straight news 24/7 and is pretty much like CNN used to be before they became more political). So MSNBC and CNN split the viewership that is opposed to Fox, while Fox has the anti CNN /MSNBC audience to itself. Total CNN and MSNBC viewership and compare it to Fox. That is the more accurate comparison.
Speaking of Fox (the peoples news station), Laura Ingraham is providing counseling tonight for progressive grief. There are 5 stages you know.
This comparison is particularly ridiculous. People dont watch CNN constantly. (at least not many do) . So 1.1 million for Chris Cuomo is not a total of their viewership. It is the viewers for one hour. If we sliced PewDiePie up into hourly segments we would see a diffetent story than the 4 million.
Also, CNN is viewed on You Tube as well. And their clips are seen on numerous other sites and news aggregators. Also , CNN has a web site of it's own. CNN.com is the 23rd most visited website in the US according to Alexa.
FoxNews.com is 55th.
And CNN used to pay airports to have the sets tuned into CNN. The point is that CNN can run at a loss if the owner wants. However, once they lose a pending lawsuit, they may pull the plug.
What evidence do you have that CNN is running at a loss?
At least CNN isn't playing promo ads for a whole hour like they are for Carlson now.
CNN and all the rest, right?
Yeah. Of course. After all, how can anything compete with the, "I've got the biggest brain," cult?
Thank gawd for the DeVos. Brainiac unleashed.
OK
Some perspective may be in order.
Throughout the day about 3 million adults are watching MSNBC or FOX, which increase to 6 million around 8 PM
CNN may be in "third place" but their viewers increase steadily throughout the day so the by 8PM almost 7 million people are watching either Hannitty Madow or Cuomo.
Question.
Who or what are the other 247 million adults watching?
Why are you worried about what less than 3% of the viewers are tuned into?
Besides, everyone knows Fox is the only conservative game on cable, MSNBC and CNN have to fight over the same viewer pool and compete with local news.
Not a big mystery Vic.
That's kind of a convoluted way to look at it, but you are known to do that. Why not simply erase CNN and try and figure out how much it changes anything? All you are left with is Fox News with some highly rated prime time shows (Carlson & Ingraham were replacements for O'Reilly & Megyn Kelly) against Rachel Maddow, who has superstar status on the left. If we can agree on that much, we come back to point of the seed - CNN is dying. So, what is the reason? Are you saying it duplicates MSNBC? or is it the other way around?
I know, Maybe we should think back to some of the reporting CNN has done for the past two years.
You do realize that Fox cable is bundled into every basic cable package and that for the most part CNN is not.
They (CNN) are in upper tier packages because Time Warner (now ATT ) charge cable companies for CNN ( and HBO ) and make a ton of money doing so.
The bottom line is if CNN makes "enough" money from subscriptions (yes) and advertising (yes) for the parent company to continue it, then it's their decision.
CNN is not dying.
People pay extra to see CNN .
These are old tired arguments from years ago that were argued to death on the Vine and here.
But keep beating that horse, there may be some life in it yet...
It's not me. Anyone who keeps dragging Fox into the discussion is having a problem setting aside emotion.
As I have suggested, you may want to consider CNN's actions over the past few years:
"My mother, smart as she was, didn’t go to college. The CNN brass did. They should know better, but for them the bottom line is what counts. And the bottom line grew bigger when CNN began to be seen as the anti-Trump network. The brass didn’t want their viewers’ minds to be confused by the law or the facts. Trump was guilty; that’s all they needed to know.
This simplistic perspective insults the intelligence and open-mindedness of many CNN viewers who email me, saying that they miss my contrarian views. But the CNN brass apparently prefer the absolute certainty of, say, attorney Michael Avenatti — “I guarantee Trump will not serve out his term” — to my calibrated legal analysis.
Well, my calibrated views turned out to be largely right, while CNN’s wishful thinking turned out to be largely wrong. That isn’t because I’m smarter than the CNN execs. It’s because I don’t allow my political preferences to substitute for objective legal analysis.
Jeff Zucker has said that he is “entirely comfortable” with CNN’s coverage. Of course he and his company’s shareholders are comfortable: Their one-sided coverage earned the network lots of mone y.
But they shouldn’t be comfortable with the quality of their on-air performance. They should review the footage and require those who were demonstrably wrong to listen to how badly they misled their viewers.
John Brennan , the former director of the CIA, has acknowledged that he may have based his mistaken assessments and predictions on “bad information,” but what he failed to say was that he and CNN were often the source of this bad information that led viewers to have false expectations.
So let’s hope that CNN, and other media that got it wrong, will reassess their approach to divisive, controversial issues. Their viewers are entitled to hear contrary views, even those that make them uncomfortable.
Jeff Zucker should be uncomfortable, rather than smug, about what his network did — and didn’t do. It did not well serve its viewers, or the American public. ..Alan Dershowitz
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School.
Perhaps you should get back on topic
Youv'e been flagged for trolling...Go call your buddy
That is correct. My BIL moved to Jackson. When getting cable hooked up, he had to add an extra tier just to get CNN.
Fox was included in the lower tier.
Well when your source is an emotional bog from "McCain & Smitty",I guess emotion is what you have to settle for, because the "CNN is dying meme" is meaningless
without discussing Fox or MSNBC, now isn't it?
It's been that way since Fox started in 1996.
Some people are just too emotional to accept it I suppose.
you forgot to include this.
Ahh...and you were called, because you weren't here when I posted that.
You have no right to be moderating these seeds & articles
Fox is not the topic, Mr "moderator"
FOX ratings are the heart and soul of the blog, Vic.
An opinion contributor...unlike you, who gets to abuse power
I tend to wake up and check the site like everyone else does, Vic.
There is no conspiracy theory here.
Wow SP has a lot of power here at NT eh?
Only in the eyes of someone as biased as you are, whatever your name is
Please explain this abuse so I can explain it to Perrie
or do you think that your making this personal, is a bit off topic?
[deleted]
How about removing offensive statements for people that have been flagged, like when I caught you red handed. Don't worry, I won't be able to dig that up for Perrie, but you do remember. How about ignoring valid flags? How about deleting a Conservative post just about every time you delete a liberals post? How about abusing the subjective rule on sweeping generalizations?
or do you think that your making this personal, is a bit off topic?
Enough is enough....You proved me right by showing up here...You were called!
Funny how Fox and MSNBC and Newsy are always reporting that
"CNN just reported"....
I could have hit MSNBC too. Maddows ratings have tanked since the Mueller Report, but I kept this on CNN. You are the one that focused on Fox and you can't even see it for yourself. It's so sad
SP is a member and allowed to post on articles.
And the article itself is comparing CNN to fox and MSNBC.
They are in the article.
It's gone beyond that. I refer you back to post 7.1.7 and 7.1.8.. When those posts went up SP was not listed under "Chat Now". I know I looked. That's why I challenged r.t..b to call "your buddy". You do see how fast the response. I can't get him to check flags when he's here! Yet he comes fast when others call him.
So NOW, you want me to Moderate while I participate in the same thread?
Haven't you complained about that loudly?
Guess what?, I cannot, a big yellow box pops up and says
"Cannot ticket; you have commented in this thread"
Technology is a wonderful thing isn't it?
That's just your delusion
Have a good morning...
The title of the seed is "CNN's ratings are so low", the chart lists cable news ratings to demonstrate how many CNN shows are on the bottom. It's about CNN and how it failed. It's about CNN & Journalism - and THE DECLINE OF BOTH!
No, I want you to do what your'e best at - ignore the flags... ALL of them!
Have a good morning...
Will do
I was called in for a moderator review, so I reopened the article to go over some points.
There is no doubt that very few people relatively speaking watch these news shows. However, their influence goes beyond just the cable news viewers. Their product is repeated and used on many other news programs, and is talked about on other shows , such as the late night comedians, and the daily nightly news on the broadcast networks, in newspapers, and on many news websites that aggregate news. Videos from Fox News, MSNBC and CNN are viewed many many times outside of their televison channel. What does this all add up to ?, I have no idea, but I do believe these channels have influence on what is discussed generally as "news" in the United States.
CNN is also international. They don't rely solely on the American brand.
Well there is OANN and Newsmax TV on satellite 📡 and some cable systems.
Well apparently we cannot mention them because they are not the target of this seeds focus on how evil and one sided CNN appears to be to some folks,
neither are OANN or Newsmax mentioned in the blog used as the source, so they would be off topic, at least here.
How low are they?