I come across all kinds of things, from a variety of sources. What does NOT determine my viewing choices is what other people do or do not make popular. Too bad for you if you lack a similar independence of mind, capable of evaluating content for yourself.
You must be one of the tragically uneducated, uniformed who were taught "republican fuzzy math".
Just a quick check for factual viewer stats for Current turned up this:
Keith Olbermann’s new Current TV program opened to a modest-sized audience Monday night, yet still topped CNN.
The host’s new Countdown delivered 179,000 viewers at 8 p.m. among adults 25 to 54, the preferred demo of the cable news networks. By comparison, Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor had 735,000 viewers in the demo. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who replaced Olbermann, drew 237,000 (Olbermann used to average roughly 300,000 in the demo on the network). One nice win for Olbermann: He beat CNN’s struggling Eliot Spitzer, who only had 89,000. For Current TV, whose ratings are small enough to not regularly get reported by Nielsen Media Research, these numbers aren’t bad. “We’re very pleased,” said Olbermann in a statement. “But like I said last week, it’s one night. We’ll need a couple of weeks to know where we’re starting, and we’re truly interested in next year and especially 2013.”
and this:
In One Night, Keith Olbermann Obliterates Eric Bolling’s Fox Ratings June 23, 2011 9:08 am ET by Eric Boehlert
"This week, Keith Olbermann debuted his Countdown show on Current TV, having left MSNBC earlier this year. According to Nielsen numbers released by Current, Countdown’s Monday night debut attracted 179,000 viewers between the ages of 25-54. It was an impressive showing for Current, a cable channel whose primetime audience in the past has hovered around 30,000 viewers.
Countdown did well enough to beat out its CNN competition in the 8 p.m. time slot. What’s also telling is how, in just one night, Olbermann managed to completely obliterate the ratings of Fox’s Eric Bolling, whose nightly Fox Business show continues to be mired in a ratings wasteland."
The Olbermann numbers are interesting because the documentary series comes on immediately afterwards.
And then there was this: CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel lost viewers last year, the first time all three have seen dropoffs in a dozen years, according to a new study.
According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report, cable news viewership for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News fell substantially in 2010 -- 13.7 percent in aggregate for a sharper decline than any other sector. Broadcast news, which has experienced declining viewership for years, was down another 3.4 percent in 2010.
And the cable news networks' declines were sharpest in primetime, where median viewership plummeted 16 percent to an average of 3.2 million, while daytime tune-in was down 12 percent.
And for the first time in the dozen years since PEJ has been monitoring the cable news networks, every channel was down. CNN -- with its well-publicized primetime woes -- was down the most in 2010, dropping 37% to 564,000 viewers. But Fox News, the No. 1 cable news network, declined 11 percent. And MSNBC -- which finished 2010 ahead of CNN in primetime in news' target demographic of 25-54-year-olds and total viewers -- was down 5 percent.
So Current, a relatively new network, has some ups and downs in viewer numbers but seems overall to be steadily building viewer numbers, while the other cable networks are declining. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues or not.
The host’s new Countdown delivered 179,000 viewers at 8 p.m. among adults 25 to 54, the preferred demo of the cable news networks.
Month old, almost two month old ratings, please find me something from last week..... nothing his ratings are in the crapper, so bad that they will not even publish them, these ratings you tout in his first week went down 30% in week 2 and nothing about him since
I can find nothing on Cw/KO after the first two weeks why is that, every other cable network I can find info from yesterday, not CurrentTV though why is that?
I don't know, I don't work for either Current or Olberamann.
So.........why don't YOU contact them and ask them what the ratings are, respectively, for their network and programming?
They have to maintain some figures that are relatively up to date; it is the basis on which they sell their advertizing -- and they have more and better advertisers at the moment than Glenn Beck had his last year or so.
Did you need me to find that contact information for you, or are you good to go on your own?
In any case, I came across the documentary, and found the content stands on its own merit. Doesn't matter how few or how many viewers or the locations shown; content is not viewer or location dependent for value or validity.
Knob Creek looks like a lot of fun. 1st 22 minutes was fantastic. Narrator/reporter was respectful, articulate, and looked like we has real world experience. Controlling an uzi with 3, or 4 shots per trigger pull takes some practice. That would be an expensive trip to take part. They aren't giving the ammunition away for free.
Camden, NJ. Not so much. Cesspool driven by gangs and drugs. On par with Cops. Probably informative for those who know little about gangs. Hey, at least they served warrants during the day. ;)
I do like the comparison from Africa to the inner city made early on. I've often thought tolerance to violence (or violence in general) was imported via the country of origin, or heritage.
As example, Japanese hardly commit violent crime in Japan and there also are no guns. Japanese immigrants also do not commit violent crimes in the US; plenty of guns here.
"You must be one of the tragically uneducated, uniformed who were taught "republican fuzzy math"."
I've noticed this type of expression from you on a regular basis. I take it Mike is in approval otherwise the constant negative, superior projected attitude wouldn't stand. I find you mildly educated, young, and close minded. I think you're best left ignored.
Anon wrote: "I find you mildly educated, young, and close minded. I think you're best left ignored."
You would be wrong on all three counts; I'm not young, I'm more than mildly educated, and I'm not closed minded.
What I require to be persuaded something is correct is well-documented, verifiable fact, not wildly partisan ideology. That is not being closed minded. I have found a pattern of dishonesty, particularly when it comes to representations that require numbers and statistics that have taught me by experience to dig into Republican presented numbers.
For example, the oft-repeated phrase by Republicans that the wealthiest 2% they don't want to tax are 'job creators'. There is no factual evidence of that, none, nada, zip. If this were true, there would be correlations to support it, causal and otherwise. There aren't; if anything the opposite appears to be true. What does track is the number of individuals in that 2% who are Republican DONORS.
If you can provide me documentation of facts, you will find me a very open minded person. Absent that, you will be less likely to find agreement from me.
So, please document your statement: "As example, Japanese hardly commit violent crime in Japan and there also are no guns. Japanese immigrants also do not commit violent crimes in the US; plenty of guns here."
Between 1991 and 1998, there were 21 shooting attacks against cooperate executives believed to be yakuza-related .In 1993 a bank official with a now bankrupt Hanwa bank in Osaka bank was gunned down outside his home. A year later an official with Sumitomo was found with a gunshot wound in his head in an apartment. In 1997, the second most powerful man in the yakuza, Masuru Takumi, was murdered in a Kobe hotel café. The same year, the head of a 800-member subsidiary within the Yamaguchi-gumi was gunned down in a crowded hotel café in Tokyo. A bystander sitting at the next table was also killed. According to the National Police Agency, the armed crime committed by organized crime members peaked with 112 cases in 2002, with 104 cases in 2003, 85 in 2004, 51 in 2006 and 36 in 2007. The number of handguns seized from places linked with gangs has also declined after 2002. In 2007, there were 42 shooting incidents involving gangsters, killing 13, an increase from 11 a year earlier, The police seized 231 hand guns from gang members in 2007, up 27 from a year earlier. There were three reported gang wars in 2007, with 12 shootings relate to them, up from no wars in 2006."
This reference goes on in detail to itemize other instances that disprove your assertion, about Japan:
I'll be happy to refute your assertion about Japanese Americans when you support your assertion.
I have no antipathy to the Japanese; quite the opposite, I have a lot of respect for their culture and accomplishments. But I object to sanitizing any group.
For example, the oft-repeated phrase by Republicans that the wealthiest 2% they don't want to tax are 'job creators'. There is no factual evidence of that, none, nada, zip. If this were true, there would be correlations to support it, causal and otherwise. There aren't; if anything the opposite appears to be true. What does track is the number of individuals in that 2% who are Republican DONORS.
Take all of the money from the wealthiest 2% and run the country for about 200 days..... that makes sense......
"It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average."
and - again referring to the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy: "According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion."
And don't try to blow off Bartlett as a liberal economist: "Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul."
Just yesterday, on Meet the Press, Alan Greenspan was observing that the gap in wealth that concentrates all the money with the weatlhy, and impoverishes the other 98% has resulted in a lack of consumption and demand, which directly are the cause of the current constriction. No one with money - individuals OR corporations - is investing in additional business activity, including that which would create jobs, because of that lack of demand, despite their having large amounts of money they COULD invest.
The answer is NOT to give them more money to sit on, the answer is to stimulate demand and consumption, which in turn will stimulate economic growth including jobs. So YES, emphatically, giving the wealthy - individuals or corporations more money as 'job creators' is a crock of well-aged organic manure.
Too bad you seem to lack the economics education sufficient to understand when your right wing politicians are lying to you, in order to further enrich their already wealthy donors at your expense.
I'm no hack; you however appear to be bone ignorant. There is no cure for wilfull stupid.
You must have been one of Ctv's 100 viewers....
ReplyDeleteI come across all kinds of things, from a variety of sources. What does NOT determine my viewing choices is what other people do or do not make popular. Too bad for you if you lack a similar independence of mind, capable of evaluating content for yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou must be one of the tragically uneducated, uniformed who were taught "republican fuzzy math".
Just a quick check for factual viewer stats for Current turned up this:
Keith Olbermann’s new Current TV program opened to a modest-sized audience Monday night, yet still topped CNN.
The host’s new Countdown delivered 179,000 viewers at 8 p.m. among adults 25 to 54, the preferred demo of the cable news networks. By comparison, Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor had 735,000 viewers in the demo. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who replaced Olbermann, drew 237,000 (Olbermann used to average roughly 300,000 in the demo on the network). One nice win for Olbermann: He beat CNN’s struggling Eliot Spitzer, who only had 89,000.
For Current TV, whose ratings are small enough to not regularly get reported by Nielsen Media Research, these numbers aren’t bad. “We’re very pleased,” said Olbermann in a statement. “But like I said last week, it’s one night. We’ll need a couple of weeks to know where we’re starting, and we’re truly interested in next year and especially 2013.”
and this:
In One Night, Keith Olbermann Obliterates Eric Bolling’s Fox Ratings
June 23, 2011 9:08 am ET by Eric Boehlert
"This week, Keith Olbermann debuted his Countdown show on Current TV, having left MSNBC earlier this year. According to Nielsen numbers released by Current, Countdown’s Monday night debut attracted 179,000 viewers between the ages of 25-54. It was an impressive showing for Current, a cable channel whose primetime audience in the past has hovered around 30,000 viewers.
Countdown did well enough to beat out its CNN competition in the 8 p.m. time slot. What’s also telling is how, in just one night, Olbermann managed to completely obliterate the ratings of Fox’s Eric Bolling, whose nightly Fox Business show continues to be mired in a ratings wasteland."
The Olbermann numbers are interesting because the documentary series comes on immediately afterwards.
And then there was this:
CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel lost viewers last year, the first time all three have seen dropoffs in a dozen years, according to a new study.
According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report, cable news viewership for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News fell substantially in 2010 -- 13.7 percent in aggregate for a sharper decline than any other sector. Broadcast news, which has experienced declining viewership for years, was down another 3.4 percent in 2010.
And the cable news networks' declines were sharpest in primetime, where median viewership plummeted 16 percent to an average of 3.2 million, while daytime tune-in was down 12 percent.
And for the first time in the dozen years since PEJ has been monitoring the cable news networks, every channel was down. CNN -- with its well-publicized primetime woes -- was down the most in 2010, dropping 37% to 564,000 viewers. But Fox News, the No. 1 cable news network, declined 11 percent. And MSNBC -- which finished 2010 ahead of CNN in primetime in news' target demographic of 25-54-year-olds and total viewers -- was down 5 percent.
So Current, a relatively new network, has some ups and downs in viewer numbers but seems overall to be steadily building viewer numbers, while the other cable networks are declining. It will be interesting to see if the trend continues or not.
The host’s new Countdown delivered 179,000 viewers at 8 p.m. among adults 25 to 54, the preferred demo of the cable news networks.
ReplyDeleteMonth old, almost two month old ratings, please find me something from last week..... nothing his ratings are in the crapper, so bad that they will not even publish them, these ratings you tout in his first week went down 30% in week 2 and nothing about him since
I can find nothing on Cw/KO after the first two weeks why is that, every other cable network I can find info from yesterday, not CurrentTV though why is that?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I don't work for either Current or Olberamann.
ReplyDeleteSo.........why don't YOU contact them and ask them what the ratings are, respectively, for their network and programming?
They have to maintain some figures that are relatively up to date; it is the basis on which they sell their advertizing -- and they have more and better advertisers at the moment than Glenn Beck had his last year or so.
Did you need me to find that contact information for you, or are you good to go on your own?
In any case, I came across the documentary, and found the content stands on its own merit. Doesn't matter how few or how many viewers or the locations shown; content is not viewer or location dependent for value or validity.
Knob Creek looks like a lot of fun. 1st 22 minutes was fantastic. Narrator/reporter was respectful, articulate, and looked like we has real world experience. Controlling an uzi with 3, or 4 shots per trigger pull takes some practice. That would be an expensive trip to take part. They aren't giving the ammunition away for free.
ReplyDeleteCamden, NJ. Not so much. Cesspool driven by gangs and drugs. On par with Cops. Probably informative for those who know little about gangs. Hey, at least they served warrants during the day. ;)
I do like the comparison from Africa to the inner city made early on. I've often thought tolerance to violence (or violence in general) was imported via the country of origin, or heritage.
As example, Japanese hardly commit violent crime in Japan and there also are no guns. Japanese immigrants also do not commit violent crimes in the US; plenty of guns here.
"You must be one of the tragically uneducated, uniformed who were taught "republican fuzzy math"."
I've noticed this type of expression from you on a regular basis. I take it Mike is in approval otherwise the constant negative, superior projected attitude wouldn't stand. I find you mildly educated, young, and close minded. I think you're best left ignored.
Its a wonder i visit this place at all.
I thank you for posting that video. Wonderful information. No wonder the gun lovers attacked it and its ratings and its network.
ReplyDeleteAnon wrote: "I find you mildly educated, young, and close minded. I think you're best left ignored."
ReplyDeleteYou would be wrong on all three counts; I'm not young, I'm more than mildly educated, and I'm not closed minded.
What I require to be persuaded something is correct is well-documented, verifiable fact, not wildly partisan ideology. That is not being closed minded. I have found a pattern of dishonesty, particularly when it comes to representations that require numbers and statistics that have taught me by experience to dig into Republican presented numbers.
For example, the oft-repeated phrase by Republicans that the wealthiest 2% they don't want to tax are 'job creators'. There is no factual evidence of that, none, nada, zip. If this were true, there would be correlations to support it, causal and otherwise. There aren't; if anything the opposite appears to be true. What does track is the number of individuals in that 2% who are Republican DONORS.
If you can provide me documentation of facts, you will find me a very open minded person. Absent that, you will be less likely to find agreement from me.
So, please document your statement:
"As example, Japanese hardly commit violent crime in Japan and there also are no guns. Japanese immigrants also do not commit violent crimes in the US; plenty of guns here."
(Keep in mind the word yakuza as you do so....)
http://books.google.com/books?id=W1vi31vifg0C&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=yakuza,+guns,+violence&source=bl&ots=A1i5Af8ATq&sig=zuzHIOwq91roLpfLxjnI7yNfypk&hl=en&ei=xL87Ttn3MsqPsQL9tdn0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yakuza%2C%20guns%2C%20violence&f=false
"Yakuza Shootings
Between 1991 and 1998, there were 21 shooting attacks against cooperate executives believed to be yakuza-related .In 1993 a bank official with a now bankrupt Hanwa bank in Osaka bank was gunned down outside his home. A year later an official with Sumitomo was found with a gunshot wound in his head in an apartment.
In 1997, the second most powerful man in the yakuza, Masuru Takumi, was murdered in a Kobe hotel café. The same year, the head of a 800-member subsidiary within the Yamaguchi-gumi was gunned down in a crowded hotel café in Tokyo. A bystander sitting at the next table was also killed.
According to the National Police Agency, the armed crime committed by organized crime members peaked with 112 cases in 2002, with 104 cases in 2003, 85 in 2004, 51 in 2006 and 36 in 2007. The number of handguns seized from places linked with gangs has also declined after 2002.
In 2007, there were 42 shooting incidents involving gangsters, killing 13, an increase from 11 a year earlier, The police seized 231 hand guns from gang members in 2007, up 27 from a year earlier. There were three reported gang wars in 2007, with 12 shootings relate to them, up from no wars in 2006."
This reference goes on in detail to itemize other instances that disprove your assertion, about Japan:
http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=810&catid=22&subcatid=147
I'll be happy to refute your assertion about Japanese Americans when you support your assertion.
I have no antipathy to the Japanese; quite the opposite, I have a lot of respect for their culture and accomplishments. But I object to sanitizing any group.
HACK!!!!
ReplyDeleteFor example, the oft-repeated phrase by Republicans that the wealthiest 2% they don't want to tax are 'job creators'. There is no factual evidence of that, none, nada, zip. If this were true, there would be correlations to support it, causal and otherwise. There aren't; if anything the opposite appears to be true. What does track is the number of individuals in that 2% who are Republican DONORS.
Take all of the money from the wealthiest 2% and run the country for about 200 days..... that makes sense......
"Take all of the money from the wealthiest 2% and run the country for about 200 days..... that makes sense...... "
ReplyDeleteNo, repeal the Bush tax cuts which caused more than half of our current deficit:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table3
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/07/factcheckorg-checks-federal-fiscal-data.html
and
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/
"It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average."
and - again referring to the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy:
"According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion."
And don't try to blow off Bartlett as a liberal economist: "Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul."
Just yesterday, on Meet the Press, Alan Greenspan was observing that the gap in wealth that concentrates all the money with the weatlhy, and impoverishes the other 98% has resulted in a lack of consumption and demand, which directly are the cause of the current constriction. No one with money - individuals OR corporations - is investing in additional business activity, including that which would create jobs, because of that lack of demand, despite their having large amounts of money they COULD invest.
The answer is NOT to give them more money to sit on, the answer is to stimulate demand and consumption, which in turn will stimulate economic growth including jobs. So YES, emphatically, giving the wealthy - individuals or corporations more money as 'job creators' is a crock of well-aged organic manure.
Too bad you seem to lack the economics education sufficient to understand when your right wing politicians are lying to you, in order to further enrich their already wealthy donors at your expense.
I'm no hack; you however appear to be bone ignorant. There is no cure for wilfull stupid.