Fox News Nabs Historic Cable Ratings Victory

[Primemuscle]

Nope.  I expose myself to liberal and conservative sources every single day. 

Exposure is meaningless without honest consideration.

[Dos Equis]

Exposure is meaningless without honest consideration.

Whatever that means.  I read and I listen to opposing viewpoints, so no, I do not engage in confirmation bias.  We are nothing alike in this regard. 

[Primemuscle]

Whatever that means.  I read and I listen to opposing viewpoints, so no, I do not engage in confirmation bias.  We are nothing alike in this regard. 

It is good that you read and listen to opposing viewpoints. They must not have any impact on your thinking though, because your choice of material to post on Getbig strongly suggests that you routinely if not exclusively engage in confirmation bias.

[The Scott]

Exposure is meaningless without honest consideration.

So I am to expose myself to the lies and bullshit of libs and give such dross honest consideration?

That is said in response to your words quoted above.  And to be honest I think, not "feel", I understand your intent.  Any intelligent human will give honest consideration to something or someone they are exposed to.  But if their response doesn't fit the ignorant liberal agenda they are considered a racist, a bigot and homo/transo/fuckophobe or whatever bullshit these liberal shitasses make up next.

Fuck those people to goddam hell.  I think any that "feeeeeeeeel" inclined to tell those who work for a living to give so that the lazy and worthless can be lazy, should be stripped of all they own and forced to live on the streets with their compatriots.

That would be great.  Fucking liberals being FORCED against their will (because we all know they don't want to do what they want us to do) to give up everything and be like their pets.

I am concerned with my family and myself.  I work for them.  I don't take drugs.  I don't get drunk.  I don't steal.  I actually work an honest job for my living.  I don't demand the government take care of me or anyone else, and you know what that means.

This is just going to go over your conscience.  Again.

[Primemuscle]

So I am to expose myself to the lies and bullshit of libs and give such dross honest consideration?

That is said in response to your words quoted above.  And to be honest I think, not "feel", I understand your intent.  Any intelligent human will give honest consideration to something or someone they are exposed to.  But if their response doesn't fit the ignorant liberal agenda they are considered a racist, a bigot and homo/transo/fuckophobe or whatever bullshit these liberal shitasses make up next.

Fuck those people to goddam hell.  I think any that "feeeeeeeeel" inclined to tell those who work for a living to give so that the lazy and worthless can be lazy, should be stripped of all they own and forced to live on the streets with their compatriots.

That would be great.  Fucking liberals being FORCED against their will (because we all know they don't want to do what they want us to do) to give up everything and be like their pets.

I am concerned with my family and myself.  I work for them.  I don't take drugs.  I don't get drunk.  I don't steal.  I actually work an honest job for my living.  I don't demand the government take care of me or anyone else, and you know what that means.

This is just going to go over your conscience.  Again.

You sure have much to say about a post not addressed to you. Bored lately?

[The Scott]

You sure have much to say about a post not addressed to you. Bored lately?

It must hurt your ego to be so easily bested by such as I.  I do respond to your pedestrian quips directed toward me and my thoughts.  You could try your rapier (that's a sword) wit against one if you so desire.  Go ahead.

Unfortunately for such as you, while I am not intelligent I do possess  a bit of common sense and the ability to write, i.e., express my self.  You and others like you merely type.

A chimp can type letters and symbols and even a gorilla can learn to sign.
You are like so many liberals here and in the real world, you play "moral limbo".

[Dos Equis]

It is good that you read and listen to opposing viewpoints. They must not have any impact on your thinking though, because your choice of material to post on Getbig strongly suggests that you routinely if not exclusively engage in confirmation bias.

Regarding my choice of material to post on this board, it includes a substantial number of stories and links from liberal sites.  I hope you're just uninformed and not outright lying like some do on this board. 

And what exactly is my thinking?   

[Dos Equis]

Fox News Announces Bill Hemmer Will Replace Shepard Smith
WILLIAM DAVIS
REPORTER
December 09, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/09/fox-news-shepard-smith-replacement-bill-hemmer/

[Primemuscle]

Regarding my choice of material to post on this board, it includes a substantial number of stories and links from liberal sites.  I hope you're just uninformed and not outright lying like some do on this board. 

And what exactly is my thinking?   

My perception is that you almost exclusively post material which favors the conservative/Republican perspective. It appears to me that many if not most of your posts are copied and pasted from conservative sources. While you may well read both sides of an issue, my perception is that you reject most if not liberal material.

I lost track of your above post which I quoted here. In order to find it, so I could reply to you, I pulled up your most recent post history. I may be mistaken, but not one of these recent posts reflect a liberal viewpoint or were pulled from a liberal source. However, this is admittedly a small sampling. I have no intention of reading your entire post history because there is no need to prove my perception of your post's bias.

It seems I offended you. Otherwise, why would you suggest I was intentionally lying. I am not sure it is possible for a perception to be a lie, anyway.

I can only imagine what you think and can no more exactly know it than you can know absolutely know what and how I think.

There is no need for you to defend your position to me. You are entitled to your views, just as I am to mine.

[Dos Equis]

My perception is that you almost exclusively post material which favors the conservative/Republican perspective. It appears to me that many if not most of your posts are copied and pasted from conservative sources. While you may well read both sides of an issue, my perception is that you reject most if not liberal material.

I lost track of your above post which I quoted here. In order to find it, so I could reply to you, I pulled up your most recent post history. I may be mistaken, but not one of these recent posts reflect a liberal viewpoint or were pulled from a liberal source. However, this is admittedly a small sampling. I have no intention of reading your entire post history because there is no need to prove my perception of your post's bias.

It seems I offended you. Otherwise, why would you suggest I was intentionally lying. I am not sure it is possible for a perception to be a lie, anyway.

I can only imagine what you think and can no more exactly know it than you can know absolutely know what and how I think.

There is no need for you to defend your position to me. You are entitled to your views, just as I am to mine.

You are assuming way too much.  I'm never offended by anything anyone posts about me on a message board. 

But regarding what I post, I don't understand why you are outright lying.  I never pegged you for a liar.  Just forgetful.  Here is a sample of what I've recently posted, which includes The Hill (left of center), Politico (left of center), and Huffington Post (communist):

Group of Democrats floating censure of Trump instead of impeachment: report
BY MARTY JOHNSON - 12/10/19

A small group of House Democrats have been floating the idea of censuring President Trump instead of impeaching him, multiple lawmakers familiar with the situation told Politico.

The group consists of Democrats whose districts Trump won in 2016 and reportedly includes Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

"I think it’s certainly appropriate and might be a little more bipartisan, who knows,” Schrader told the publication Tuesday.

According to lawmakers, the idea of a censure is thought to have more bipartisan appeal than the impeachment does and would also allow Democrats in the Senate avoid a lengthy trial.

However, the chances are slim that the censure becomes something feasible. The group of House Democrats are reportedly very short of the 18 votes needed to block the impeachment vote on the House floor, and a majority of Democrats have already gotten behind Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the impeachment proceedings.

“I don’t think [moderate Democrats] have enough to block impeachment. 10 to 12 max. But they’re working to raise it,” a Republican lawmaker told Politico. “And [they’re] obviously reaching out to Republicans to see if they would join them.”

So far, only two Democrats – Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) – are expected to vote against the articles of impeachment that were formally introduced Tuesday morning.

No House Republican is expected to vote in favor of the articles, though, Justin Amash (I-Mich.), who left the Republican party this summer, said last week that he would most likely vote in favor of the articles depending on the language used.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/473890-group-of-democrats-floating-censure-of-trump-instead-of-impeachment-report?__twitter_impression=true

Rand Paul: Ban Congress from seeking members', journalists' phone data
"Nobody should get your phone records. This is a big deal," he told reporters.
By BURGESS EVERETT
12/09/2019

Sen. Rand Paul is working on changes to congressional rules that would prohibit committee chairmen and congressional subpoenas from sweeping up phone call data of journalists and members of Congress.

The move was prompted by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose committee obtained phone records from both Intelligence ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and conservative journalist John Solomon in the course of its investigation of other people.

Paul told reporters on Monday evening that he is working on revisions to committee rules because “nobody should get your phone records. This is a big deal, this is a huge deal.” The Kentucky Republican also gently scolded journalists for not rebelling against Schiff, arguing it would be easy enough to subpoena suspected journalists’ sources to sweep up their call info.

“There hasn’t been enough calls from some of you people about protecting your own,” Paul told a handful of reporters. “Congress has no rules … it’s not illegal for Adam Schiff to do this. It’s highly immoral or unfair for him to do it. No one else has ever done it to another member or a journalist. I think we need to change the rules.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/09/rand-paul-ban-congress-phone-data-079549

Horowitz report is damning for the FBI and unsettling for the rest of us
BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/09/19
 
The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.

Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the unusual step to issue a statement that he did not believe the evidence had supported that conclusion at the beginning of the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. In fact, the Justice Department has a standard that requires the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to campaigns of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.

This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when the icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts.

The investigation was largely based on a May 2016 conversation between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London. Papadopolous reportedly said he heard that Russia had thousands of emails from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That was viewed as revealing possible prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release two months later, which was then used to open four investigations targeting the campaign and Trump associates. Notably, Democrats and the media lambasted Trump for saying the Justice Department had been “spying” on his campaign, and many said it was just an investigation into figures like Carter Page. Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and a variety of different sources. What they really discovered is the main point of the Horowitz report.

From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians? Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed. Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.

Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.

The report also said that Steele was viewed as reliable and was used as a source in prior cases, yet Horowitz found no support for that and, in fact, found that the past representations of Steele were flagged as unreliable. His veracity was not the only questionable thing unveiled in the report. Steele relied on a character who, Horowitz determined, had a dubious reputation and may have been under investigation as a possible double agent for Russia. Other instances were also clearly misrepresented.

The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.

Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.

In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473709-horowitz-report-is-damning-for-the-fbi-and-unsettling-for-the-rest-of-us

Gotta keep that FISA report off the front page.  After this, they have to figure out how to schedule the vote by the full House so it drags out as long as possible. 

House Democrats expected to unveil articles of impeachment Tuesday
BY OLIVIA BEAVERS - 12/09/19

House Democrats are expected to unveil articles of impeachment against President Trump during a Tuesday morning press conference, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and other relevant committee chairs are expected to make the announcement, which is a sign that Democrats plan to stay on track with their fast-charging goal of wrapping up their impeachment inquiry into Trump's contacts with Ukraine ahead of the holiday season.

Multiple sources also told The Hill they believe the markup of the articles will either take place on Wednesday or Thursday, though they noted that the precise time has not been confirmed.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) told reporters Monday evening that Democrats are "going to work through the night" to determine the exact articles they expect to introduce, though they have heavily been indicting the rough outlines of what they believe are impeachable offenses.

Last week, Democrats heard from three constitutional scholars who said they believed Trump committed three impeachable offenses: Abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress.

But one source familiar said Democrats are expected to introduce only two articles of impeachment.

Still, Nadler was tight-lipped after leaving a meeting in Pelosi's office ahead of the gathering with members of his panel and declined to comment on how the articles of impeachment would take shape.

Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) too declined to say what the announcement would be, but he assumed a more somber tone that suggested serious next steps.

"I think that a lot of us believe that what happened with Ukraine especially is not something that we can just close our eyes to," Engel said as he left Pelosi's office. "This is not a happy day."
News that impeachment articles are imminent comes on the same day that Democrats and Republicans dueled over the propriety of Trump's contacts with Kyiv.

Democrats allege that Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to commit to opening two investigations that would benefit him politically, including into 2020 political rival former Vice President Joe Biden. They also say the president withheld the promise of a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in U.S. aid as leverage, all while Trump officials repeated the requests in meetings with Zelensky representatives.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/473783-house-democrats-expected-to-unveil-articles-of-impeachment?__twitter_impression=true

DOJ Watchdog: FBI Justified In Opening Trump Probe, But Problems With FISA Apps
The IG report examines the bureau’s decisions during “Crossfire Hurricane,” the investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia election meddling.
By Ryan J. Reilly
POLITICS 12/09/2019
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doj-ig-report-trump-campaign-crossfire-hurricane_n_5dee589be4b00563b854e971

[Primemuscle]

You are assuming way too much.  I'm never offended by anything anyone posts about me on a message board. 

But regarding what I post, I don't understand why you are outright lying.  I never pegged you for a liar.  Just forgetful.  Here is a sample of what I've recently posted, which includes The Hill (left of center), Politico (left of center), and Huffington Post (communist):

My perception is that you almost exclusively post material which favors the conservative/Republican perspective. It appears to me that many if not most of your posts are copied and pasted from conservative sources. While you may well read both sides of an issue, my perception is that you reject most if not liberal material.

I lost track of your above post which I quoted here. In order to find it, so I could reply to you, I pulled up your most recent post history. I may be mistaken, but not one of these recent posts reflect a liberal viewpoint or were pulled from a liberal source. However, this is admittedly a small sampling. I have no intention of reading your entire post history because there is no need to prove my perception of your post's bias.

It seems I offended you. Otherwise, why would you suggest I was intentionally lying. I am not sure it is possible for a perception to be a lie, anyway.

I can only imagine what you think and can no more exactly know it than you can know absolutely know what and how I think.

There is no need for you to defend your position to me. You are entitled to your views, just as I am to mine.

If you persist in calling my perceptions lies, we have nothing to discuss. Check what I highlighted above. I clearly qualified my response with regards to your post history at the time I read it.  Which, by the way did not include some of what you posted (exampled) since there was a time lapse between reading the history and responding to you.

As I posted, you are entitled to your views, just as I am to mine. My view (perception) is that your posts and likewise political bias is clearly to the right.

[Dos Equis]

If you persist in calling my perceptions lies, we have nothing to discuss. Check what I highlighted above. I clearly qualified my response with regards to your post history at the time I read it.  Which, by the way did not include some of what you posted (exampled) since there was a time lapse between reading the history and responding to you.

As I posted, you are entitled to your views, just as I am to mine. My view (perception) is that your posts and likewise political bias is clearly to the right.

We're not talking about my views at this point.  We're addressing your contention that I only post articles from conservative sources and nothing from liberal sites.  That is just flat out not true. 

Also, don't confuse me with a journalist.  I'm not.  I don't have any obligation to post equally from different ideologies.  In fact, I make it a point to mock the rampant hypocrisy of liberals-statists-progressives because it's very difficult to find what I post in the MSM (e.g., liberal media bias, censorship, violence and intolerance directed to opposing viewpoints, etc.). 

[jude2]

Fox News Announces Bill Hemmer Will Replace Shepard Smith
WILLIAM DAVIS
REPORTER
December 09, 2019
https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/09/fox-news-shepard-smith-replacement-bill-hemmer/

Thank God. He is way better than Smith.

[Primemuscle]

We're not talking about my views at this point.  We're addressing your contention that I only post articles from conservative sources and nothing from liberal sites.  That is just flat out not true.  

Also, don't confuse me with a journalist.  I'm not.  I don't have any obligation to post equally from different ideologies.  In fact, I make it a point to mock the rampant hypocrisy of liberals-statists-progressives because it's very difficult to find what I post in the MSM (e.g., liberal media bias, censorship, violence and intolerance directed to opposing viewpoints, etc.).  

What I've highlighted pretty much says it all.   Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[Dos Equis]

What I've highlighted pretty much says it all.   Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Seriously bro?  Your point was that I only post articles from conservative sites and none from liberal or left leaning sites.  That point is absolutely false. 

If you want to say I mock liberals more than conservatives, then you have a point.  But that's not what you said.  Don't get it twisted. 

[Dos Equis]

Nolte: CNN Ratings Plummet by Double-Digits During Impeachment Week
JOHN NOLTE  12 Dec 2019

Besides visceral hate for Donald Trump, one of the reasons CNN has been so openly aggressive in cheerleading for Trump’s impeachment is to boost its pathetic ratings.

Well, like everything else CNNLOL chief Jeff Zucker touches, that plan has also failed because the far-left outlet’s ratings took a double-digit nosedive last week.

While this is a slight improvement over the previous week, when CNNLOL hit a three-year ratings low, CNN is still unable to attract even a million viewers during its dreadful primetime schedule.

Compared to this same week last year, CNNLOL lost 14 percent of its primetime viewers and 15 percent of its total day viewers.

During primetime, the fake news outlet was only able to attract — in a county of 330 million where 88 million households have access to CNN — a pathetic, measly, humiliating 887,000 viewers. Throughout the day, the conspiracy-theory outlet was only able to attract a pathetic, measly, humiliating 689,000 viewers.

America’s other left-wing cable outlet, MSNBC, also lost viewers. A full 12 percent in primetime and five percent in total day … while the president of the United States is being impeached!

So how about Fox News…? Am I unfairly LOL-ing at CNNLOL when the overall trend in cable news viewership is trending down?

Nope.

Compared to this same week last year, Fox grew its primetime audience by 31 percent and its total day audience by 14 percent.

This is what’s happening…

Even Democrats, even Trump haters are tired of CNNLOL’s lies and bias and just plain-ole’ bad TV.

Look at this… I don’t care what your politics are, this is just bad TV, excruciating TV, and this is pretty much CNN 24/7 over the last four years. It’s either Jake Tapper’s resting bitchface or this:

John Ocasio-Nolte
@NolteNC
Can’t imagine why CNN’s ratings have hit a 3 year low.  This is just bad TV.

Embedded video
416
6:12 AM - Dec 11, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
152 people are talking about this
—

Must I say this again… the president of the United States is being impeached, something that has only happened  a handful of time over the 244-year history of our country, and both CNNLOL and MSNBC are LOSING viewers, and CNNLOL’s viewership loss is far worse because CNNLOL has practically no viewers to begin with.

Like I mentioned last week, people are no longer not watching CNN — this is a rejection by the public, a revulsion and turning away unlike anything I’ve ever seen in the news media before.

Here are the raw numbers via TVNewser:

FNC ranked No. 1 in prime time (2,859,000) / No. 1 in total day (1,616,000)
MSNBC ranked No. 4 in prime time (1,808,000) / No. 2 in total day (1,070,000)
CNN ranked No. 11 in prime time (887,000) / No. 5 in total day (689,000)
During its hideous primetime line-up, CNN lost to a cable channel called Freeform … and it was glorious.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/12/nolte-cnn-ratings-plummet-by-double-digits-during-impeachment-week/

[Dos Equis]

Dos, I for one won't assume your not trying to stay informed on issues.
However,like any of us, your analyze that info and make your own unique conclusions.

For example, we have 9 well read legal scholars on the supreme Ct.
They can hear the same testitomny and read the same evidence for a case.
THEN, the final vote can be a 4-3.

A lot of these issues aren't objective science, like a physics problem.
It comes down to personal OPINION and judgement.

What does this have to do with cable ratings?? 

[jude2]

What does this have to do with cable ratings?? 

LMAO

[polychronopolous]

What does this have to do with cable ratings??  

 

[Dos Equis]

Fox News Ratings Hit 23-Year High
by Matt Palumbo Posted: December 30, 2019   

America’s economy is as strong as it’s ever been, yet as the expansion continues uninterrupted, one industry in particular continues to shrink. The media.

While job growth in 2019 topped 180,000 per month, media giants Verizon, Gannett, Highsnobiety, and CBC, among others, shed 7,800 jobs. CNN’s prime-time ratings plummeted to three year lows. The most recent Democrat presidential debate was the least watched yet – a record previously set by the one before it.

Nobody is tuning into liberalism – but not everyone in the media is tanking harder than Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers.

As The Hill reported:

Fox News averaged 2.5 million viewers per night in 2019, the most in its 23-year history, making the network the most-watched channel on basic cable.

According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News beat out ESPN, with its 1.78 million viewers, and third-place MSNBC, which drew an average of 1.75 million viewers in prime time. Fox topped its cable competitors for a fourth straight year, Nielsen said.

CNN finished 22nd, with an average of 972,000 viewers per night.

Of the top five cable shows, four are on FNC. They are: “Hannity,” with 3.3 million, followed by “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” with 3.1 million. MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” was third, with 2.78 million, followed by Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle,” with 2.57 million, and “The Five” at 2.55 million.

One pressing remains question unanswered: who are these 972,000 people tuning in to CNN every night?

https://bongino.com/fox-news-ratings-hit-23-year-high/

[Primemuscle]

Fox News Ratings Hit 23-Year High
by Matt Palumbo Posted: December 30, 2019   

America’s economy is as strong as it’s ever been, yet as the expansion continues uninterrupted, one industry in particular continues to shrink. The media.

While job growth in 2019 topped 180,000 per month, media giants Verizon, Gannett, Highsnobiety, and CBC, among others, shed 7,800 jobs. CNN’s prime-time ratings plummeted to three year lows. The most recent Democrat presidential debate was the least watched yet – a record previously set by the one before it.

Nobody is tuning into liberalism – but not everyone in the media is tanking harder than Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers.

As The Hill reported:

Fox News averaged 2.5 million viewers per night in 2019, the most in its 23-year history, making the network the most-watched channel on basic cable.

According to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News beat out ESPN, with its 1.78 million viewers, and third-place MSNBC, which drew an average of 1.75 million viewers in prime time. Fox topped its cable competitors for a fourth straight year, Nielsen said.

CNN finished 22nd, with an average of 972,000 viewers per night.

Of the top five cable shows, four are on FNC. They are: “Hannity,” with 3.3 million, followed by “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” with 3.1 million. MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” was third, with 2.78 million, followed by Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle,” with 2.57 million, and “The Five” at 2.55 million.

One pressing remains question unanswered: who are these 972,000 people tuning in to CNN every night?

https://bongino.com/fox-news-ratings-hit-23-year-high/

Why is this information published as Politics? Shouldn't it be in the Business catagory? Maybe Dan Bongino is only about politics.

"Scoreboard: Monday, Sept. 30. Fox News was No. 1 on Monday, both in total day and in prime time. MSNBC finished No. 1 at 4, 7, and 11 p.m. Fox and MSNBC split the 9 p.m. hour, with Hannity the most-watched cable news show of the night and Maddow No. 1 in demo." https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Has+fox+News+hit+a+23+year+high+in+ratings%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Dos Equis]

Why is this information published as Politics? Shouldn't it be in the Business catagory? Maybe Dan Bongino is only about politics.

"Scoreboard: Monday, Sept. 30. Fox News was No. 1 on Monday, both in total day and in prime time. MSNBC finished No. 1 at 4, 7, and 11 p.m. Fox and MSNBC split the 9 p.m. hour, with Hannity the most-watched cable news show of the night and Maddow No. 1 in demo." https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=Has+fox+News+hit+a+23+year+high+in+ratings%3F&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

If you were not a contrarian, you would have actually read the article before commenting and saw that it is relying on an article from The Hill, which is largely a political website. 

[Primemuscle]

If you were not a contrarian, you would have actually read the article before commenting and saw that it is relying on an article from The Hill, which is largely a political website. 

Being a contrarian, this changes nothing for me. It's about ratings, ratings begets income, information about a corporation's income is most often found in the business section of a publication or media cast.

BTW, by definition, in this case I am not technically a contrarian, maybe even the opposite. 

Contrarian: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

[Dos Equis]

Being a contrarian, this changes nothing for me. It's about ratings, ratings begets income, information about a corporation's income is most often found in the business section of a publication or media cast.

BTW, by definition, in this case I am not technically a contrarian, maybe even the opposite. 

Contrarian: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

You see something that reflects positively on the president or conservatives, or negatively on Democrats and you immediately start searching for something to contradict it.  Tough to be you.  lol

[Primemuscle]

You see something that reflects positively on the president or conservatives, or negatively on Democrats and you immediately start searching for something to contradict it.  Tough to be you.  lol

It's not as tough to be me as you might think.  But yeah, someone has to take the other view. How boring would life and this board be if we all felt same and said the same things. Be happy I'm here to give you someone to complain about. You're gonna miss me when I am gone....admit it.