Dylan Byers:
This is the story of MSNBC in a nutshell: It rose to prominence on its criticism of George W. Bush, peaked during Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign, and, by criticizing Republicans and championing liberal causes, sustained its viewership in the years that followed.
Until now.
MSNBC suffered harder loses in 2013 — in terms of both viewership and revenue — than either of its competitors at Fox News and CNN, according to Nielsen data featured in a new Pew Research report. Prime-time viewership declined by a staggering 24 percent (nearly twice the loss sustained by CNN and four-times that sustained by Fox News). Daytime viewership fell by 15 percent, even as it rose at both of the other networks.
On the revenue side, MSNBC was projected to decline by 2 percent, while both CNN and Fox News were projected to experience growth of 2 percent and 5 percent, respectively. MSNBC was expected to bring in $475 million in revenue: less than half what CNN will make and roughly one-quarter of what Fox News will make.
Conventional wisdom has it that cable news doesn’t have much of a future: The audience is old and getting older, the television landscape is growing more and more fractured, appointment viewing is becoming a thing of the past, etc. Certainly, every cable news network lost viewers last year. But this version of events often ignores the incredible revenue gains made each year by Fox News (like a rocket) and CNN (far more gradual, but we’re still talking billions).
I wonder, why is it that far left media outlets such as MSNBC and Air America simply can’t survive? The left owns the media and there seems to be no shortage of outlets vomiting out one left wing talking point after another (which are dutifully repeated ad nausium); why DO these operations continually go tits up while more balanced or even right wing outlets thrive?
No, really, an actual question.
@Bill Burris: One of those “proof is in the pudding!” situations I would suppose!
@Bill Burris:
It could simply be a matter of market saturation. An ovewrwhelming portion of the media including journalism, television, film, is hopelessly controlled by the Collective. MSNBC is just one more outlet of liberal hate, and the most abrasive one at that. It really only appeals to the hard core uneducated occupy fantasists and their college professors.
May be 2014 will be its last year.
@David:
I’m surprised that Microsoft has continued to let them use their name.
Dang, it just fell apart without Piers Morgan. Maybe “Bathtub Boy” Keith Olbermann can come back and save them.
MSNBC has terrible anchors. Fox has O’Reilly, smart good looking blondes and a hardcore right wing audience. CNN presents a balanced and entertaining view, with Blitzer and the beautiful and intelligent Erin Burnett.
@Rich Wheeler:
Well, not really. What Fox has is balanced fairness. They cover the news, not provide a political agenda. They only appear to be far right wing when compared to all the other news outlets which ignore unflattering stories about the administration, edit information to support a left wing agenda and provide outright support for Democrat candidates while undercutting Republicans.
MSNBC is like a SciFi channel movie; the only entertainment contained is its poor production value; until you realize they are doing it on purpose. Apparently, even liberals eventually get sick of the thinly disguised blatant partisanship. “Sharknado” provides more non-partisan political insight.
I’m sure it will come to a surprise to hear that I think MSNBC should be in trouble because they are biased and blindly one sided, something a so called news agency shouldn’t be.
What won’t surprise you I’m sure is to hear that I think Fox News should be in trouble because they are biased and blindly one sided, something a so called news agency shouldn’t be.
The reason many here won’t agree with with both statements is because you are biased and blindly one sided.
@Ronald J. Ward: Every liberal believes Fox shills for Republicans, exposing the lie we here frequently that they “personally watch Fox to see what they are saying.”. Fox reports the negatives on Republicans as well as Democrats and was just as hard (yet fair) on Bush as on Obama. It’s simply that Obama provides so much more material to work with.
As I said, compared to the cheerleaders at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, the Daily Show looks like a far right outlet. However, as many surveys and polls bear out, Fox is the most balanced of them all. Liberals hate it because Fox presents the negative stories the other propaganda outlets are forbidden from reporting. NBC will cover Bieber or Cyrus while not mentioning poor enrollment figures or yet another illegal delay in the enactment of Obamacare. The fact that they go out of their way to keep the truth from the general population is more transparent than the most transparent administration in history.
@Bill Burris: Fox is no more balanced than MSNBC. It is more interesting with O’Reilly but it is the choice of 63% of those identifying as Repubs. and less than 20% identifying as Dems. These #’s reversed with CNN.
I watch em both. People who take Fox as gospel–like some here at F.A.–need to BROADEN their horizons. They sound like robots.
If you’d listened only to Morris and Rove you’d have found Obama’s 2012 win impossible to believe. “Just as hard on Bush as on Obama.” Are you serious?
@Bill Burris: After reading your first paragraph, I saw no reason to read the 2nd. Also, I’ve read your lunatic rebuttals before and they’re just dumber than a sack full of Retire05s or Redteams.
Fox spent 8 years as a mouthpiece for GWB, has done everything in their power to promote and advance the Tea Party, and has spent the entire Obama years enticing the crazies by bashing him. They’ve been caught editing and photo shopping vids, taking quotes out of context, and out right lying. To even argue otherwise is utterly stupid and divorced from reality.
The reason you cant see this is because you are a blind partisan hack and ignorant of anything pertaining to actual political news.
@Rich Wheeler: “Fox is no more balanced than MSNBC” Ah, well there you have it in a nutshell. An unbiased appraisal.
Tell me, has Fox ever edited parts of a recording in order to make the information match the political agenda? Has Fox actually incorporated the slogan of the Republican party into their own identity? How may Fox commentators have spouses within the administration? How often has Fox journalists been called to the White House for private conference? Yeah, certainly it is as you say; MSNBC is no more biased than Fox. And GITMO has been closed. Right?
@Ronald J. Ward: Whether or not you read one, two or no paragraphs is totally immaterial to me. I have no delusions that you will or are even capable of unbiased, open-minded observation. Just because Fox never fabricated “evidence” with which to slander Bush doesn’t make them his supporter. Just because they never repeated lies about racism and violence of the Tea Parties does not make them a promoter. What it makes them is honest, something MSNBC, you and Obama have no understanding of.
“They’ve been caught editing and photo shopping vids, taking quotes out of context, and out right lying. ” You obviously have readily available evidence of this… please share it.
Fox is capable of mistakes but they have yet to become the outright cheerleader for a failing ideology the competition has become. Your ignorance is willful ignorance because the facts and truth are right before you, but you choose to avert your eyes towards Kos, MoveOn, Media Matters, Chris Matthews and Maddow. You CHOOSE ignorance because it is part of your ideology. Don’t deign to lecture me or any other thinking human about fairness, non-bias or balance. You don’t even know what it would look like.
@Bill Burris:
Yet I openly admitted that MSNBC was biased. Yet you are either delusional or outright lying about Fox News, actually validating my point.
You actually said ” They(Fox) cover the news, not provide a political agenda”. You actually seriously said that and it’s in black and white above!
I rest my case!
@Ronald J. Ward:
And as usual, you’re wrong. If it was, in fact, one sided, then it would be dying the same slow death as PMSNBC. Conservatives won’t watch any more blatantly biased reporting than Dimocrats will. But then you won’t know I wrote this because you don’t like my messages.
@Rich Wheeler:
I don’t like either of those. both are RINO’S
@Ronald J. Ward:
Stop writing those autobiographies.
@Bill Burris: Hey Bill, sounds as if RJW is ticked off that he didn’t get his check today. He’s about to blow a gasket.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I believe that your comment is biased.
@Ronald J. Ward: I guess no one explained the rules to you, Ronald. See, just because you admit that the flag ship of the far left propaganda network is a far left propaganda outlet does not mean I have to agree with your unproven and unprovable false accusations about Fox. I asked you to back up your claims (note: I have asked many a liberal mouthpiece to back up the claims against Fox and, just as we see here, examples never follow) and, of course, you did not disappoint; you showed you are only repeating what you have been told to repeat about Fox News with no basis in fact.
So, go back to the sources of information which lead you to vote into office such wastes of space such as Obama, Reid, Grayson, Pelosi and the like. Yes, Ronald, you just keep dipping into the well of knowledge you have been relying on. It has served you so well.
@Ronald J. Ward:
You do realize of course, that you’re an idiot, don’t you?
@Redteam: You may not like em but along with pretty boy Sean they were the voice of Fox, assuring an Obama defeat–outwardly rooting for him to lose. “Fair and balanced” Nonsense.
@Kraken: Obviously, it is in black and tan. Oh well, you can’t make them think.
@Rich Wheeler: Based on the exposed lies, festering scandals, perpetually high unemployment (false data on unemployment not withstanding) and a stagnate economy, a prediction of an Obama defeat was not too outlandish. In fact, under normal circumstances, he would certainly have gone down in devastating defeat.
What always concerned me the most was the perception of his accomplishments which was being provided by the left wing biased MSM and that, in addition to the manipulated unemployment figures and IRS harassment of the opposition made the difference.
@Bill Burris: Bill— Scoreboard. Even as the results came in those 3 geniuses couldn’t give a straight call. Pathetic and a black eye for Fox.
@Bill Burris:
No, it’s not that Bill, he’s just ticked because he didn’t get paid as promised so he’s cutting back on his duties. (He’s said he’s not reading me anymore, and I think he’s cutting back on Retire05, so sounds like you may be next. (he’ll probably show up as a reincarnation soon. Their usual practice.
@Rich Wheeler: It is quite obvious that Rich and Ron do not know the difference between news and commentary. MSNBC includes commentary as news while FOX has news shows and commentary shows. There is a difference if one understands.
@Rich Wheeler:
For every Hannity show that you may think is biased one way, there is an O’Reilly that is just as biased the other way, in my opinion. Tho I don’t think either of them are biased, just honest.
@Randy: Does ANYONE care what Shep Smith has to say—boring
WHO watches him vs. Hannity and O’Reilly–who btw deserves his #1 ranking.
@Rich Wheeler:
Apparently some don’t agree with you. I don’t personally watch him because I don’t watch any news show at that time of day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Smith
@Redteam: ouch………r.j.bagee
Here’s another reason PMSMNC is in trouble- how they treat guests.
And see right at the start how Hayes appears to be shocked at the suggestion that Obama lied.
@Rich Wheeler: Again, as I said, an astute statistician would see the terrible economy, high unemployment and obvious and apparent ineptitude as an election killer. Romney had done so well in the debates, even when opposing Obama AND the “moderators” that I believed he would win, as will, but the support of the media made me nervous. So, yes, they were wrong… so?
Did they deny they were wrong? Did they come back later and try to match their predictions to the results?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/12/msnbc-host-ed-schultz-botches-defiant-obamacare-enrollment-prediction/?tid=up_next
Again, with your criticism of O’Reilly, you reveal how dependent you are upon what you are told to believe. For the first 3, 4 years, O’Reilly gave Obama a wide benefit of the doubt. Only after the economy failed to ever recover and Obamacare began tanking big time that he laid into him. Sure, O’Reilly most likely would NOT vote for Obama, but then again, he is obviously a very smart man. However, simply because he does not describe a thrill up his leg on a regular basis does not mean he maintains a bias.
Have you ever heard anyone describe Bush as “like God” or giving one a thrill up the leg? Have you ever witnessed adulation by supposedly intelligent commentators or even journalists for ANY Republican? Your side of the reporting suffers heavily from worshiping their messiah and with very few exception cannot provide an objective view.
@Rich Wheeler:
I hate to break it to you, but those guys are comentators. They are supposed to have and give their opinions.
I wish I had a link to it, but I remember seeing some story about a study from one of the CA universities. It rated all the news channels and put Fox in as slightly right of center. If I recall, the PBS news hour was closer to the center & everything else was left. In fairness, I also recall that at the time, I thought the methodology of the study was questionable…
@Bill Burris: You misread—I like O’Reilly who far outdraws Hannity and Shep Smith.
@Rich Wheeler: I think, in reading the comment of Redteam on my phone (damn Blackberry) I attributed that remark to you. My apologies.
@Bill Burris: No apology necessary. Far as I can tell Redteam doesn’t like anybody.
JimS My dad got me watching MacNeil Lehrer many years ago. Still the gold standard of broadcast news.
@Rich Wheeler:
Hannity and O’Reilly are entertainers/commentators, Smith is news anchor. (apples/oranges) He is top rated anchor in cable news.
The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour was pretty balanced. Until the more conservative McNeil retired.
The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is quite Left of center, with such Lefty-luminaries as Gwen Ifill, who wrote a glowing book about Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, and “Femista Barbie” Judy Woodruff. I would mention Ray Suarez as a Castroite Latino on the show, but he was marginalized and edged-out when Ifill and Woodruff got promoted.
So, the Commie member of the Latino identity group got pushed-out by the Black/Feminist identity groups, due to his plumbing.
@Bill Burris: Bill, I record all of the Fox shows at night, Greta, Kelly, O’Reilly and Hannity. I don’t always watch them all, but almost always O’Reilly and Kelly. I never watch any news show that is not on Fox with the exception of occasionally seeing a segment of 60 minutes while I wait for the shows after it.
@Rich Wheeler:
why?
@Redteam: He really enjoyed it and I started watching with him when I was home. No question in my mind it was the best news hour on T.V.
Have you been watching The Tournament? Outstanding–Fla./UCLA tonight should be a good one.
@Rich Wheeler:
I wouldn’t question that. But I don’t think there is such a thing as a good news hour anymore. Since the liberals took over news, they don’t report news any longer. They only report non-negative news about libs and negative news about conservatives. I’d rather see unbiased, but don’t think that’s gonna happen.
Yep, and planning to watch that one. I think Fla will take it, but never know.