Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: James on August 27, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
-
Beck hits 3 million, 5 1/2 times the audience of MSNBC !!!! :o
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/Spb8DDPIG0I/AAAAAAAACgw/kW7a9mhBIGc/s1600/beck%2Bwednesday2.JPG)
Keep it up Liberals !!!!
-
Beck hits 3 million, 5 1/2 times the audience of MSNBC !!!! :o
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/Spb8DDPIG0I/AAAAAAAACgw/kW7a9mhBIGc/s1600/beck%2Bwednesday2.JPG)
Keep it up Liberals !!!!
people gather around to see an train wreck or an auto accident too
-
Ratings speak nothing of content. Some of the best shows are Science and History related and don`t draw large ratings whatsoever.
American Idol and reality TV are good examples of low brow, high rating nonsense that speak nothing toward content.
-
Ratings speak nothing of content. Some of the best shows are Science and History related and don`t draw large ratings whatsoever.
American Idol and reality TV are good examples of low brow, high rating nonsense that speak nothing toward content.
Not true. Ratings tell quite a bit when similar shows are competing during the same time slots.
And American Idol ratings have nothing to do with political show ratings. Apples and oranges.
-
Not true. Ratings tell quite a bit when similar shows are competing during the same time slots.
And American Idol ratings have nothing to do with political show ratings. Apples and oranges.
Ratings speak nothing of content.
-
Ratings speak nothing of content.
Wrong. A political show devoid of true content will get poor ratings. Like pretty much everything on MSNBC. It's the content of a show that helps drive ratings.
Ratings help tell us what kind of content people like.
-
Ratings speak nothing of content.
well said
I was reading the thread title and thought the same.
WTF do ratings matter when all he says is shit??
-
Wrong. A political show devoid of true content will get poor ratings. Like pretty much everything on MSNBC. It's the content of a show that helps drive ratings.
Ratings help tell us what kind of content people like.
I guess Book TV is devoid of any content since the ratings are abysmal. ::)
-
I guess Book TV is devoid of any content since the ratings are abysmal. ::)
No, it means people typically watch TV for entertainment. Even the name "Book TV" makes me want to yawn and I'm a bookworm.
-
No, it means people typically watch TV for entertainment. Even the name "Book TV" makes me want to yawn and I'm a bookworm.
So your earlier assertion that poor ratings=devoid of content makes no sense?
-
No, it means people typically watch TV for entertainment. Even the name "Book TV" makes me want to yawn and I'm a bookworm.
Oh yeah? What do you read?
-
He said books...not wiki.
Though a little scandal might alienate advertisers, it’s pure ratings gold. Last night Glenn Beck had over 3 million viewers at 5pm, second only to O’Reilly for the night. But, Beck had more 25-54 viewers than O’Reilly (888K to 876K). I don’t watch or really even care about the cable news wars, but still…wow. Even though Beck airs before primetime, when there are fewer people watching TV, he had the most 25-54 viewers in the cable
-
So your earlier assertion that poor ratings=devoid of content makes no sense?
No, your comments in this thread make no sense.
-
Oh yeah? What do you read?
Lots. :) I typically alternative between fiction and nonfiction with each book. Currently reading "There Is No A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," by Anthony Flew.
-
He said books...not wiki.
lol. :D
-
No, your comments in this thread make no sense.
You said earlier that poor ratings=devoid of content.
Then I brought up Book TV which is filled with great intellectual content but abysmal ratings.
You then said, people watch television because of entertainment, typically, as you put it.
So again, do you still think that the higher the ratings of a program, the more intellectual or meaningful the content must be?
If not, why?
-
.......Olberdouche crying !"
there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine, that stores, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms often show Fox News on their televisions. Don't write a letter, don't make a threat, just get up and explain, if they will not change the channel, leave the place and say calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere.... Fox News Channel will never restrain itself from incitement to murder and terrorism, not until its profits begin to decline, when its growth stops. So not so much a boycott here as a quarantine, because this has got to stop.
I think Keith outa stick to worring about his own crappy show.
We know whatever GE/FOX “deal” there was is now dust. But last night the attacks reached heights not seen since before the summer. On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host went after Bill O’Reilly personally.
And it was based on some faulty ratings – which Glenn Beck pounced on during his radio show today.
Olbermann named O’Reilly the “Best Person in the World” last night (and changed the picture), but it was more of the same – a knock at the FNC host. Began Olbermann (via J$):
In his nightly round of self-applause last night, designed to drown out the echo of daddy hitting him…
This insult takes the feud to another level – or rather, the level it was at before June when several reports say a truce of some kind was first reached.
The attack came over O’Reilly’s insult toward MSNBC’s ratings, and Olbermann answered with some new ratings info of his own. “Ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News,” he said.
Well besides the fact that “35 and younger” isn’t exactly a usual demographic, according to Nielsen, this doesn’t appear to be accurate. The lowest age level would be the 18-34 demo, which O’Reilly still beat Olbermann in during July (140,000 to 124,000). The FNC host is winning by that same percentage in August so far.
On Beck’s radio show today, he went after Olbermann. Olbermann continued last night describing the FNC audience as “tinfoil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists,” and Beck had a response:
I don’t know how many lines you need to cross before you get to State‑Controlled Media. Does Barack Obama need to sign the check for Keith Olbermann before we can look at MSNBC and NBC News as State‑Controlled Media?
O’Reilly won’t fire back at Olbermann – he considers that swinging down. But expect another GE takedown soon, and for the cycle to continue. With Beck involved, the ante is upped that much further.
-
Lots. :) I typically alternative between fiction and nonfiction with each book. Currently reading "There Is No A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," by Anthony Flew.
What a waste of time. Throw that book in the trash. I bet I can sum up the book in 3 words.
God did it. ::)
-
You said earlier that poor ratings=devoid of content.
Then I brought up Book TV which is filled with great intellectual content but abysmal ratings.
You then said, people watch television because of entertainment, typically, as you put it.
So again, do you still think that the higher the ratings of a program, the more intellectual or meaningful the content must be?
If not, why?
You're confused. I said two things: (1) people primarily watch TV for entertainment, so naturally shows like American Idol will have better ratings than a political show; and (2) "it's the content of a show that helps drive ratings." Those statements are not inconsistent. Shows like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc. will always have more viewers than Larry King, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
When you're comparing similar shows, content determines which shows people will watch. And "content" doesn't always = "intellectual or meaningful" stuff. It includes the ability to sing, dance, act, make a fool of yourself, etc.
In any event, your attempt to link American Idol with political shows makes no sense.
-
What a waste of time. Throw that book in the trash. I bet I can sum up the book in 3 words.
God did it. ::)
lol. Buzzzz! lol. :)
-
Keith Olbermann on the subject of veterans' health care, July 26 2007:
OLBERMANN: The outrageous treatment of our injured vets.
Yeah TA...anything u don't believe in is trash.....guess what, Beach doesn't have to prove he exists, maybe u in ur infinite wisdom ought to try and prove he doesn't. Get back to us in 50 years.
GEORGE W BUSH: We owe our wounded soldier the very best care and the very best benefits and the very easiest to understand system.
OLBERMANN: Too bad they're not getting it....the embarrassing news stories of shameful medical treatment and crumbling facilities for badly wounded war veterans...It has gotten so bad that this week two veterans groups sued the government over how it treats injured vets, especially those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.... One lawsuit claims that the VA has a backlog of 600,000 disability claims....
vs Keith Olbermann on the subject of veteran's health care tonight, August 17 2009:
OLBERMANN: Today the President addressed veterans, a segment of the population that already receives public health care, and superlative health care at that....the President promising the vets that their excellent government provided benefits will not change.
Hmmm.
-
You're confused. I said two things: (1) people primarily watch TV for entertainment, so naturally shows like American Idol will have better ratings than a political show; and (2) "it's the content of a show that helps drive ratings." Those statements are not inconsistent. Shows like American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, etc. will always have more viewers than Larry King, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
When you're comparing similar shows, content determines which shows people will watch. And "content" doesn't always = "intellectual or meaningful" stuff. It includes the ability to sing, dance, act, make a fool of yourself, etc.
In any event, your attempt to link American Idol with political shows makes no sense.
So you agree then high ratings speak nothing of content since high ratings can equal "singing, dancing and making a fool of yourself".
Ratings are simply what people choose to watch for whatever reason and therefore its impossible to define the content based on ratings and impossible to define why they are watching.
-
Apples and oranges..u really think ur clever. Political shows on Fox have a right wing bent and they are frog stomping the political shows on MSNBC who are left wing. More people watch Fox because despite all ur hope and dreams for some leftwing shift, this country is center-right and moving away from Barry and the extreme left wing douchbaggery that ol Barry represents.
-
So you agree then high ratings speak nothing of content since high ratings can equal "singing, dancing and making a fool of yourself".
Ratings are simply what people choose to watch for whatever reason and therefore its impossible to define the content based on ratings and impossible to define why they are watching.
No, that's not what I said. Try again.
-
Apples and oranges..u really think ur clever. Political shows on Fox have a right wing bent and they are frog stomping the political shows on MSNBC who are left wing. More people watch Fox because despite all ur hope and dreams for some leftwing shift, this country is center-right and moving away from Barry and the extreme left wing douchbaggery that ol Barry represents.
What is so "right-wing" about Fox? All I ever see is made up facts, fear-mongering with no emphasis on any Conservative Ideals. They would abhor the atheist Barry Goldwater if they ever stopped to read anything he ever wrote.
I also remember they were demonizing Ron Paul during the Primaries day in and day out. I would consider him a Conservative.
Fox News is not in the business of promoting Conservativism at all. Please explain to me what they do and how they do it.
-
Apples and oranges..u really think ur clever. Political shows on Fox have a right wing bent and they are frog stomping the political shows on MSNBC who are left wing. More people watch Fox because despite all ur hope and dreams for some leftwing shift, this country is center-right and moving away from Barry and the extreme left wing douchbaggery that ol Barry represents.
I don`t care about ratings or what other people watch. YOU do. You seem to be hung up about it for some reason. I watch Book TV a lot and the ratings are abysmal and I don`t expect anyone else to watch it because I know this is a country of very poor readers. I don`t watch the show because everyone else watches it (or not watching in this case).
-
everyone likes to watch a train wreck
-
right wing bent .....did I say conservative....u read what u want to read. Ratings mean the message is getting out about Obama and his bullshit. If people loved Barry and his socialism, MSNBC would be doing better...or maybe Fox just does a better job.
-
fox news is for dummies if you need evidence just look at the people who post on this site
-
repubs win on ratings but lose the election, and claim victory.
-
Yeah..u watch MSNBC...I think that speaks for itself, hows the thrill up ur leg now. ::)......240, 2008 might as well been 400 years ago.
-
Yeah..u watch MSNBC...I think that speaks for itself, hows the thrill up ur leg now. ::)......240, 2008 might as well been 400 years ago.
right, cause since then the repubs have done everything except embarass themselves with scandal and douchebag moves.
face it, obama is giftwrapping a thousand reasons for people to hate the dems - in the middle of a crappy economy - and 50% of the country still loves his ass, way higher than clinton at this point.
By keeping Mayor Palin's twittering and Sanford's mistress in the news, they're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd love to see Mitt, jeb, Pawlenty, and Huck hold a press conference tomorrow and tell the world they're taking the party back from extremists and idiots. Won't happen tho.
-
your problem TA is that you take your biased opinion and try to pass it off as fact
simply b/c something lacks content to youuuuuuuu doesnt mean it lacks content...Also you never defined content
-
I honestly don't understand how a sane, rational, thoughtful person (left, right or center) can watch Beck and find something they like.
The same goes for Palin.
People who express a vociferous admiration for these two (and perhaps identify with them) are immediately suspect in my book on the level of intellect, common sense, and even sanity.
I hope some Phd. candidate will do a study of these people
I think it would be f'ng fascinating
-
I honestly don't understand how a sane, rational, thoughtful person (left, right or center) can watch Beck and find something they like.
The same goes for Palin.
People who express a vociferous admiration for these two (and perhaps identify with them) are immediately suspect in my book on the level of intellect, common sense, and even sanity.
I hope some Phd. candidate will do a study of these people
I think it would be f'ng fascinating
same goes for olbeirman straw that dude is nuts to fuking kooky bro
-
same goes for olbeirman straw that dude is nuts to fuking kooky bro
yeah - I don't get that point of view either
I've watched both guys and it's night and day
Olberman has the hyperbolic delivery of a sportcaster but he's FACTUAL, smart and occassionally funny
O'Reilly is a angry, bitter, liar.
I just don't see any comparison at all
-
yeah - I don't get that point of view either
I've watched both guys and it's night and day
Olberman has the hyperbolic delivery of a sportcaster but he's FACTUAL, smart and occassionally funny
O'Reilly is a angry, bitter, liar.
I just don't see any comparison at all
they are both liars straw, they both spin...you dont think olbeirman is angry hahahahahahah
again you need to take a step out from under the wing of msnbc and take off the liberal sun glasses they have provided you with.
-
New York Times
Best Sellers
Friday, August 28, 2009
Paperback Nonfiction
Top 5
1. GLENN BECK’S ‘COMMON SENSE’, by Glenn Beck
Keep it up Liberals !!!!!! ;D
-
Keep it up Liberals !!!!!! ;D
I keep forgetting... is america run by those in elected office, or authors?
-
they are both liars straw, they both spin...you dont think olbeirman is angry hahahahahahah
again you need to take a step out from under the wing of msnbc and take off the liberal sun glasses they have provided you with.
no they are not both liars.
In fact that is the largest distinction.
Olberman may be bombastic and hyperbolic but he is factual
-
Ratings speak nothing of content. Some of the best shows are Science and History related and don`t draw large ratings whatsoever.
American Idol and reality TV are good examples of low brow, high rating nonsense that speak nothing toward content.
Ratings are everything!!!!!Remember NO ONE CARES what you think is high brow or good quality.You arent the judge.The only judge is the ratings book.American idol gets high ratings because people find it entertaining.MSNBC gets shitty ratings because people despise it.
-
no they are not both liars.
In fact that is the largest distinction.
Olberman may be bombastic and hyperbolic but he is factual
LOL again bro step out from under the MSNBC wing my friend youve degraded yourself enough
-
Ratings are everything!!!!!Remember NO ONE CARES what you think is high brow or good quality.You arent the judge.The only judge is the ratings book.American idol gets high ratings because people find it entertaining.MSNBC gets shitty ratings because people despise it.
Yes. Ratings drive content. If a station has very good ratings, their content is considered valuable by a large audience. Any of you who think MSNBC or FOX programs their shows on anything other than what will drive the best ratings, you are crazy and uneducated on how TV works.
I wrote how FOX would proably have their best rating book of the year for Q3, which will drive rate on their spots for Q4. Beck is doing Fox a favor right now. When all this goes away, Fox will have a monster Q3 book to show advertisers.
Lastly, TA has zero credability and you all know that, ha.
-
no they are not both liars.
In fact that is the largest distinction.
Olberman may be bombastic and hyperbolic but he is factual
I really can't tell if you actually believe that bullshit, or if you're just trying to mess around.
-
I honestly don't understand how a sane, rational, thoughtful person (left, right or center) can watch Beck and find something they like.
The same goes for Palin.
People who express a vociferous admiration for these two (and perhaps identify with them) are immediately suspect in my book on the level of intellect, common sense, and even sanity.
I hope some Phd. candidate will do a study of these people
I think it would be f'ng fascinating
If you dont find this funny then its obvious you have ZERO sense of humor.This is why people like Beck.Hes funny.
-
Beck hits 3 million, 5 1/2 times the audience of MSNBC !!!! :o
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/Spb8DDPIG0I/AAAAAAAACgw/kW7a9mhBIGc/s1600/beck%2Bwednesday2.JPG)
Keep it up Liberals !!!!
What can i say...More Dumbasses than intellectuals...
-
LOL again bro step out from under the MSNBC wing my friend youve degraded yourself enough
dude this is simple
If I felt or had proof that Olberman was a liar I would not watch his show
Unlike Repubs, I don't like it when people lie to me
-
What is so "right-wing" about Fox? All I ever see is made up facts, fear-mongering with no emphasis on any Conservative Ideals. They would abhor the atheist Barry Goldwater if they ever stopped to read anything he ever wrote.
I also remember they were demonizing Ron Paul during the Primaries day in and day out. I would consider him a Conservative.
Fox News is not in the business of promoting Conservativism at all. Please explain to me what they do and how they do it.
BOOOOM!!!!!!!!!
-
OK- Heres a simple factual comparison for hypocrtical liberals on this website; Try to balance the equation--
Glenn Beck has no substance= He's a liar and people are stupid & like watching trainwrecks so his ratings mean nothing
Keith Olbermann has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but nobody watches him because they are too busy watching trainwrecks
Barak Obama has no subtance= He's a liar and a hypocrite... but people are stupid & worship his celebrity status so the fact that he was elected president means nothing.
John McCain has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but he was not elected president because people are stupid and are too busy worshiping celebrities.
What are ratings besides votes of confidence? People are interested... therefore, as some of you claim, what people are interested in is immaterial. If that is the case, how is Barak Obama different from Glenn Beck?
-
OK- Heres a simple factual comparison for hypocrtical liberals on this website; Try to balance the equation--
Glenn Beck has no substance= He's a liar and people are stupid & like watching trainwrecks so his ratings mean nothing
Keith Olbermann has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but nobody watches him because they are too busy watching trainwrecks
Barak Obama has no subtance= He's a liar and a hypocrite... but people are stupid & worship his celebrity status so the fact that he was elected president means nothing.
John McCain has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but he was not elected president because people are stupid and are too busy worshiping celebrities.
What are ratings besides votes of confidence? People are interested... therefore, as some of you claim, what people are interested in is immaterial. If that is the case, how is Barak Obama different from Glenn Beck?
As much as i want to disagree..its tough to
-
OK- Heres a simple factual comparison for hypocrtical liberals on this website; Try to balance the equation--
Glenn Beck has no substance= He's a liar and people are stupid & like watching trainwrecks so his ratings mean nothing
Keith Olbermann has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but nobody watches him because they are too busy watching trainwrecks
Barak Obama has no subtance= He's a liar and a hypocrite... but people are stupid & worship his celebrity status so the fact that he was elected president means nothing.
John McCain has substance= He tells the truth and is accurate but he was not elected president because people are stupid and are too busy worshiping celebrities.
What are ratings besides votes of confidence? People are interested... therefore, as some of you claim, what people are interested in is immaterial. If that is the case, how is Barak Obama different from Glenn Beck?
Olberman does NOTHING but lie.Has he retracted his story about Palin plagerising Newts speech?The guy sat there and agreed with that nit with Gerafalo as she said the tea party people are "straight up racists".The guy has ZERO substance.He is a failure at EVERYTHING he has tried.
-
The Supreme Conservative GW weighs in.
-
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:03 AM
Although Glenn Beck's hit Fox News show doesn't even air during prime time, he is generating huge prime-time-like numbers at 5 p.m.
TVbytheNumbers.com reports that, despite a liberal group's "boycott" of "The Glenn Beck Program," Beck is striking "pure ratings gold."
On Wednesday, Beck had more than 3 million viewers, just slightly behind Bill O'Reilly's No. 1 show, which airs in prime time.
But Beck pulled ahead of Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, both of whom also appear in prime time.
Beck pulled more viewers in the key demo group that advertisers love: 25- to 54-year-olds. Beck's draw of 888,000 of these viewers was more than any other show in "the cable news world for the night."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Glenn_Beck_Fox_ratings/2009/08/28/253572.html
-
Glenn Beck Smashes Ratings Record
Friday, August 28, 2009 11:03 AM
Although Glenn Beck's hit Fox News show doesn't even air during prime time, he is generating huge prime-time-like numbers at 5 p.m.
TVbytheNumbers.com reports that, despite a liberal group's "boycott" of "The Glenn Beck Program," Beck is striking "pure ratings gold."
On Wednesday, Beck had more than 3 million viewers, just slightly behind Bill O'Reilly's No. 1 show, which airs in prime time.
But Beck pulled ahead of Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, both of whom also appear in prime time.
Beck pulled more viewers in the key demo group that advertisers love: 25- to 54-year-olds. Beck's draw of 888,000 of these viewers was more than any other show in "the cable news world for the night."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Glenn_Beck_Fox_ratings/2009/08/28/253572.html
good one BB - wasnt it TA saying Olbermann pulls more young people?
-
good one BB - wasnt it TA saying Olbermann pulls more young people?
No,that was 240.He was quotting an article that was a year old and it was from one week that Oreilly was on vacation and Ingham took over.So,Olberman got better ratings one week EVER and it was when Oreilly wasnt even there.Thats called being a LOOOOOOOOOSER!