Because there are way too many variables at work, it’s impossible to draw a cause and effect conclusion for the rise in Fox News ratings since the White House called them out as being “a wing of the Republican party”, but rise they have.
Fox News’ total day adults 25-54 demo ratings and average viewership are up 14% and 9% respectively during the two weeks of “war” vs. the previous two weeks of “peace”. At least for Fox News, this “war” isn’t “hell”.
11/3 Edit: The comparisons in the chart are for a 14 day period prior to the “war” and a 12 day period after the “war”. Using a 14 day period after the “war” began shows increases of 2% for average viewership (P2+) and 7% for demo adults 25-54).
11/4 Edit: A chart with the 14 day to 14 day comparison, created by reader Stuart, is below (above the originally posted chart).
You can see our daily cable news ratings here.
Nielsen TV Ratings: ©2009 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved.
Wow Bill, you are on top of everything, myself, I really enjoy all the numbers posting our way.
Keep it up WH, you are doing FOX NEWS a favor by attacking them, if your going to go to war, you better know what you are in for.
The white houses hidden agenda is NOT hidden on Fox…..all the other networks and newspapers not only keep it hidden but are actively promoting and pushing the “hidden” socialism. Maybe these new viewers will be enlightened as to what is actually going on in USA. So, thanks WH, maybe you inadvertantly helped end your attempted takeover of america, our freedoms, and constitution. Keep it up!
Fair and balanced. I like that, yes Beck and Hannity are right wing, but the other guys and gals (blondes) are pretty balanced.
B. Obama is a puppet to the International bankers and the Builderburg Group who has infiltrated the Federal Reserve that is not 100% ran by the United States Federal government as it should be. These scum bags are purposely driving up the national debt to destroy the US economy on purpose. Brand Obama says one thing to the Sheople and B. Obama does the opposite over and over again., which explains why the unemployment rate and debt keeps rising. Obama is not stupid, he’s doing all of this on purpose. Visit Alex Jones internet radio show to learn more!
Well what do you expect. Dumb move on the WH. History has shown that you don’t go after a news organization.
Of course, we’ll have to wait a little longer to see if the new viewers will stick around
I wish I had cable so I could watch too.
it just goes to show you the mentality of who is watching Television. The average boob in this country thrives on all their negative hate. Fox news preaches how the Republican party and those who agree with their lies are the true Americans. True Americans stand behind their president and show a little faith in the changes that need to be made. You certainly didnt see FOX trashing the Bush White House the whole while he was F@cking up this country.
True Americans think for themselves and don’t have emotional attachment to the White House, Congress, or any news organization. See all sides of the debate, and make up your mind. Fox has excellent hard news, and its opinion primetime is quite provocative, but so is MSNBC. If you’re too dense to tell the difference between opinion and hard news, do us all a favor and stay home in Nov.
the WH is stupid. When you go start a “war” with a network. People who don’t really care will tune into see what its all about.
I’m not all too surprise. Obama and Company are still trying to blame republicans for obstruction when no bipartisanship is needed. Democrats have the majority in both the House and Senate. Every republican can piss and moan all they want and the Democrats can shove whatever they want through.
Too bad they can’t even convince their own members to fall in line. But don’t worry its the Republicans fault that Democrats oppose some items in a bill.
Isn’t it strange?
How many times have we heard the exact same keyphrase in a story that starts at the NYT, finds it’s way to reporters everywhere, and no one bats an eye.
One channel doesn’t follow that chain, and IT is the wrong one. It’s the evil player. It “must be wrong”.
What a bunch of crap. And now, thinking he’d gain any yardage attacking it…opens the door into his face.
Wow, guys, what an empty suit we got, this time. And 535 deadly divas, too.
Eh the White House just waged war on Fox News so that Fox News would spend time talking about that rather than this Healthcare Junk bill they are trying to ram down our throats.
Most of the time I think it is sad what is happening to the USA but sometimes I wonder if we are just too stupid to save ourselves. The only country in the world who is free and we vote to take our freedoms away…so stupid
Just for future reference, Glenn Beck was on CNN when Bush was President and he wasn’t too happy with him either.
As for viewers, it’s all about choice. As long as the choices are still out there for all of us we will have the negative attitude about one or the other. The NBC, ABC, CBS battle has been around for as long as they have existed. As will the Fox News, MSNBC, CNN battle for viewers.
Wait…FOX news isn’t a wing of the Republican Party?
Honestly, as a member of the Republican Party (but politically an independent), I’m glad FOX news isn’t “officially” a wing of the party because a lot of the time they make Republicans look like idiots. And quite frankly, there are a lot of Republican politicians out there right now who don’t need any “help” in that department.
Despite my personal feelings toward the network, I do think the White House should leave them alone. They’re not admitting that MSNBC is a “wing of the Democratic Party”, so why should they be allowed to criticize FOX for being a “wing of the Republican Party”?
What we should be worrying about is finding (or developing) a channel that might actually report the news in a rational, logical, NEUTRAL manner. Unfortunately, the only one that seems to be doing that right now is C-SPAN.
If we’re going to get ‘politically correct’ with Fox News we could call them the arm of the Libertarian Party too
When Shep is on his 2 hours it’s Democrat
Oh Fox, a dangerous news network that inspires fear, racism, and hatred.
Fox ratings rise? Who cares, it’s only watched by the nations ignorant and believers in fantasy and the Easter Bunny. So there is a small minority of more ignorant among us than we thought, that’s not news. If you want sober, intelligent, and balanced news, watch the News Hour on PBS.
Obama can not control the publics choice for news. The Glee club only has a few members.
Wow Liberals and left-wingers in denial J. Russell can you explain the to the Country why 40%of AMERICANS ARE CONSERVATIVE ACCORDING TO THE GALLUP POLL.
ALSO GOP CANDIDATES ARE GAINING TRACTION IN VIRGINIA AND NEW JERESEY GUBERNATORIAL RACES.
I GUESS ALL the Obamabots are finally smelling the coffee. HUM MSNBC KEITH OLBERAMNN AND RACHAEL MADDOW ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE “FAIR AND BALANCE” CREW.
Meanwhile, CNN falls to third in the ratings, Nancy Grace beats Keith Olbermann last Friday, and the Rachel Maddow show posts its worst month ever. Tell the truth and people will watch. It’s that simple.
Here’s an irony. The White House actually changed my mind on Fox News (and not in a way that helps them). I’ve never really watched Fox News because, as over dramatic as it sounds, their use of on-screen graphics literally hurts my eyes.
But once this all came up I started tuning in just out of curiosity and found the newscasters to be…for lack of a better term…fair and balanced. I’d always thought of Fox as a commentary network and assumed the programming was all in the vein of Hannity and O’Reily.
So they actually raised my opinion of Fox News (still won’t watch though, the graphics are just as bad as they ever were)
Did the Obama administration really think they could hurt Fox or make them change? Anybody could have seen this coming. When you tell someone “Don’t watch that show.”, that just increases their curiosity.
I agree with the sentiments of Grace W., above. My problem with Fox News isn’t that it’s right wing – it’s that it’s stupid. I would love to see intelligent conservative views presented rationally (and it is possible) – but Fox, with it’s Them-and-Us, Let’s-Get-’Em mentality – never comes close. And as for actual news – i.e. the unbiased reporting of facts about important world events – you can forget it.
And why is it that everyone on Fox News SHOUTS? It seems nobody on that channel – from reporters to commentators to newsreaders – can speak at a normal level. It’s as if they’re trying to hammer home the message.
You don’t go after someone who buys ink by the barrel or cable by the mile!
In communist theory, the truth is what ever serves the party. Thus the pary organ was called PRAVDA, or truth, in English. Other “truths” were called TREASON.
Thus when the Republicans were in power, Nancy Pelosi declared that protest was the highest form of patriotism, but when she was in power, protest, even peaceful protests of hundreds of thousands without a single arrest, was called dangerous and likely to lead to violence.
This only works if you the citizens, don’t care, can’t remember, or trust those whose trust should never be assumed.
Come on Simon….you haven’t seen Keith Olbermann shout….he shoults and then reads quotes in stupid voices as if were supposed to be funny or something….
You Libs crack me up, sitting here telling us what FOX NEWS does and how bad they are, your here in the comments section, the headline tells us that FOX NEWS is up even more when the WH attacked it. You can complain all you want about FOX, but they are Number 1 and the compitition isn’t even close, if I were in charge of MSPMS and CNN, I would be embarrassd to see those ratings compared to FOX NEWS.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. While the other network anchors wear Obama sweaters, along with pompoms, FNC is just doing their job. FNC just happens to be the only network that doesn’t kiss Barack Obama’s ass!
I don’t know. Maybe it is just me, but don’t you think that the White House would be better served by forgetting about Fox News and going after CNN or MSNBC over something? Maybe it could help them improve THEIR ratings!
Okay, maybe not.
Bill, thanks for doing this. I was curious if it really was benefiting from the WH attack as conventional wisdom was saying it was.
But depressing Fox’s ratings was never the WH’s goal. Their goal … as they clearly stated it on Sunday news shows … was to prevent the other news agencies from following Fox’s lead. I think the New York Times op-ed “Tuning In Too Late” scared the WH as NYT was essentially saying that they’ll now keep track of what Fox is doing and not wait forever to cover stories that Fox has jumped upon. Here’s a link to that op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html
So the question is, has the WH succeeding in stopping Fox from leading other news agencies. If it has, their attack is a success. If they haven’t, it isn’t. Fox’s ratings are not part of this equation.
Bill, if you hear of any report that talks about the migration or lack thereof of news stories from Fox to other news agencies, that is something I’d like to hear about.
It amuses me that Fox News is the network inspiring fear and hatred – yet which networks freely spout the derogatory “teabagger” remarks? And who called Michelle Malkin a “mashed up bag of meat?” I guess derogatory comments aren’t hateful unless they’re on Fox News.
Adam oct27 11:16 pm
I totaly agree with your opinion, its all smoke and mirriors.
john oct 27 9:39 pm
Fox News Rocks, also I would gladly take Bush back over our present Idiot and Chief…IMO
Way too many variables? Just one. If you want the liberal point of view you can watch cbs,nbc,abc,cnn,msnbc,cnbc,pbs. If you’re the other half of the population your only choice is Fox.
I love how you democrats and or liberals call anyone who watches fox names. You guys are a peice or work. I guess only your point of few is the right point of few. AS if msnbc cnbc never put out any lies. One of your bretheran dan rather sure did on George Bush. Oh we dont want to bring that up now do we
I occasional watch Fox News I guess im an idiot.
How about a president who worrys about running the country instead of how he is portrade in the media. Its rediculous!! He tries to ban fox news from anything but allows the huffington post to attend his press conferences. The huffington post is a far far left wing publication. Farther Left than Fox news is right!
J Russel says “Watch PBS for balanced news?????” You have GOT to be kidding me!!!!! I’ll stick with Fox. I want the NEWS!!! Not something that has been filtered down, clean and pressed so as not to “offend” anyone, especially the White House, and tells me facts. Not opinions! Facts!!! I’ll decide how those facts should be “interpretted. Facts! Those pesky little things that drive libs nuts!!!
I don’t think the White House was trying to “make FOX change” as someone suggested.
I think they were trying to intimidate the other networks, the so-called MSM (Main Stream Media) from picking up on reports originating from FOX.
The ACORN and WH Czar Resignations were stories largely ignored by the MSM while FOX kept the pressure on. I think the White House hopes to “de-legitimize” FOX so the other networks won’t pick up their stories.
I voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 – I have mixed emotions about both men, neither one all that good IMO – but this “war with FOX” is not only dumb, it is a dangerous assault on our first amendment. I hope they will drop it and get back to the serious business of governing this country.
Lets be honest the attractive women don’t hurt at Fox. Really how long could one look at Rachael Maddox. Even the farther right programing on Fox welcomes opposing view points. Keith Olbermann says point 1,2,3,nad 4 and has the same liberal “contributers” agree 1,2,3 and 4 day after day. Its no wonder his audience is paultry.
LOL!! I guess there aren’t as many IDIOTS, as we thought, believing the Socialist Liar barry and his LIB DEM cronies after all!
Fox doesn’t just cover news it creates news “teabaggers cough” and that’s what’s scary (and Glen Beck is an evil hypocritical douche bag)
I have watched Beck since he was on HLN. I have not found him to be hypocritical or a douche bag.
I am a black woman who has gladly stood with the teaparty fighters from the beginning. Not because of FOX but because I disagree with the current direction in which the government is going. I disagreed with Bush, too.
Don’t wage a war against the biggest news network in the US… That’s what most of Obama advisers said to him… Seems like he doesn’t listen to the dudes paid to tell him what to do… Well to bad for him
We have the same problem here in Canada, our federal taxpayer paid TV network is liberal, can’t even fake being objective. Still, our Conservative prime minister is never going to start a war against them. He’s just avoiding them
Right nuts , Left nuts , I guess we’re all nuts ….Just wait till 2010 elections to see all the fireworks between WH and Fox.
GOOD TIMES…
Not really. I prefer governance to politics. And this state of affairs leaves both parties woefully unskilled and unable to practice the former.
Your stats don’t add up. These may not be valid comparisons.
The “pre” data has a total of 14 days, and includes 2 weekend periods.
The “post” data has a total of 12 days, and only includes 1 weekend period.
Please correct and re-post. Otherwise, you may be showing bias.
If they were really up to showing bias, they would have shown the spike in 24-54 primetime during the same sets of periods, and ignored the other ratings.
AppleStinx –
Media matters re-ran the numbers to include the extra weekend in the “post” data. They got slightly different results.
It appears that this site cherry-picked the data to make Fox’ ratings appear to jump higher than it really did.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004#631281
In this type of statistic, you must match same time period to same time period, because viewers habits change, depending on the day of the week.
To “accidentally” leave out that last weekend data for the “post” period is highly suspicious.
So, I hope this site will re-run the numbers and re-post. Otherwise, this site cannot be considered a reliable source of information.
Sorry, but us statisticians are a skeptical lot.
Stuart, I am not interested in rerunning the numbers or making another chart, because it’s not worth my time. But you, as a statistician, are welcome to do so and I will post the chart if you email it to me. Make it a .gif, .jpg or .png, I am unable to post .pdfs.
You can get all the cable ratings data you need from tvnewser.com. Nielsen prevents us from making more than two weeks of tabular or list ratings data available on our site, but places no such restriction on them (go figure, but that’s another discussion entirely).
Stuart,
Granted, the 2 days made some difference. However, the data used on this site and the ones Media Matters has a beef with were (I take their words for it) Total Day numbers. How come the writer at Media Matters didn’t look into Primetime A25-54 ratings? Perhaps these didn’t fit into his agenda??
P.S. I have nothing to do with this site or how accurate it is, but the level of petty whining from some people on the left drives me up a wall.
Interesting responses. Not what I would expect from an objective site.
Bill, if I can get the numbers, I’ll gladly run them myself. I just thought that since this is your chart, you may want to look into how the numbers come out when you run the same days. You still did not explain why you ran the days like you did. If you don’t understand how to view the numbers, then say so. You know, if you can’t get the data for the missing weekend in the “post”, just remove one of the weekends in the “pre” to see what happens.
I just thought in the interest of promoting your site’s objectivity, you may want to re-check your chart. MMFA does have a point – the number of days don’t match, and the days of the week don’t match in the pre and post analysis. The data does look cherry-picked.
If you want to wait for me to find the data and run the numbers myself, that’s your choice. In the meantime, let the readers come to their own conclusions about the chart and your site. It’s your site and your credibility, not mine.
AppleStinx, They ran full-day comparisons in the “pre” and “post”, and A25-54 ratings. So, I’m not sure what your beef is. Did you view the chart they posted?
Stuart, It’s not worth my time to generate another chart, but feel free yourself and I will post it. I have easy access to all the numbers, my suggestion of using tvnewser.com was for you.
As I stated, Stuart, those are Total Day numbers. Did you understand the chart posted on Media Matters?
Stuart, if you’re looking for ratings, just search Google for “cable news ratings {month} {day}”.
Bill, Will do. In the meantime, you may get some interesting input from others.
AppleStinx, I’m not sure why you think there’s a disconnect. BOTH charts – the one here, AND the one at MMFA are TOTAL DAY VIEWER charts. We’re going in circles on this point.
This is what MMFA says about their chart,
“As I mentioned, the two weeks prior to the White House dispute cover the dates from September 28-October 11. The two weeks after that cover the dates from October 12-October 25. But the tabulation used to come up with the 9 percent ratings gain (i.e. 1.2 million vs. 1.3 million) only measured Fox News’ post-controversy ratings from October 12-October 23, which meant it was a 14-day comparison vs. a 12-day comparison. And which two days were left off the tabulation? Saturday, October 24 and Sunday, October 25. Traditionally, Saturday and Sunday, of course, are the two lowest-rated days of the cable news week.
What happened when you included October 24 and October 25 in the tabulation to make a true two-week-vs.-two-week comparison? Suddenly, that 9 percent gain in overall viewers evaporated into a barely-there 2 percent blip, while that 14 percent increase among viewers 25-54 shrunk to a much more modest 7 percent bump.”
Stuart, read my previous posts. I said: Media Matters didn’t look at PRIMETIME 25-54. Both sites looked at Total Day, P2+ and A25-54. But neither site looked at Primetime 25-54, which shows a wider gain than Media Matters would like to mention. Get it?
Bill – It’s not worth your time to generate another chart? WTF?
Let me ask this — is it worth your time (or reputation) to actually correct your headline, or to correct the core inaccuracy of your story, since it is plainly exaggerated and, ultimately, false? Or at least add a note which points out that the statistics you used for teh comparative in the original post involved dropping off two days from the “post-ratings” that, had they been included (to make the comparison apples to apples) would have reduced the so-called rise in Fox’s average ratings for that period to the point where it was, in fact, statistically insignificant (less than 20,000 viewers on average nationwide)? Is accuracy and fairness not worth your time?
I have to say, I find your answer to be infuriating. Another example of journalistic laziness translating into a media frenzy (concerning Fox’s spike in ratings) predicated on a completely false analysis. I’m sure you would have called Florida for George W. Bush just like Fox did too.
AppleStinx -
Ok. Now I see what you are saying. Sorry I didn’t understand you. You can calm down now.
But why do this? We want to compare the same data. Apples-to-apples.
What you are requesting is only extra information that is not necessary at this point. It may be interesting to see it, but not the basis of this discussion.
The purpose of my initial inquiry was to point out two outcomes, with one chart (MMFA) adding the weekend data on the “post” side to balance the “post” with the “pre”. When MMFA adds the extra weekend, we see different results that are not as much in Fox’s favor.
What MMFA has done is solid statistics, and makes more sense than to leave out the weekend in the “post” data, due to known viewer responses.
Leaving the weekend data out, especially with this now out in the open, and refusal to address it, looks like intentional bias.
It’s all about credibility.
If Media Matters is apparently accusing this site of cooking the numbers, then I would question why Media Matters didn’t pull the Primetime numbers.
To save you time, FNC Primetime A25-54 went up 12% after the incident (14-calendar days before vs. 14-calendar days after).
The main object of the White House anger, Glenn Beck, his ratings went up 5.7% (P2+) and 15.3% (A25-54) (10-weekdays before vs 10-weekdays after)
———-
We can settle this once and for all using a method that would make the White House proud. Here it goes: count NEW viewers and viewers SAVED. FNC gains after the incident:
Total Day P2+: +21%
Total Day A25-54: +35%
Primetime P2+: +26%
Primetime A25-54: +46%
Carry on.
AppleStinx –
I’m pulling now. I’ll let you know what I find. Regardless, one site’s off and I think we should see who.
BTW – I’m pulling data from from this site for just the extra days. I’ll try to x-reference to other sites, just to eliminate any further questions.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-saturday-sunday-october-24-25-2009/31634
Bill,
I pulled the data. MMFA is correct. You need to correct your post.
The increase is not as much as you claimed.
I used the extra weekend data from your own site.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-saturday-sunday-october-24-25-2009/31634
I didn’t have the raw data for the other days, so I multiplied by the number of days in each range (pre=14, post=12), added the numbers for the extra days, then re-averaged using the new number of days: pre=14, post=14.
Original Data Posted by tvbythenumbers
Days –> 14 12
TV Pre Post
P2 1206 1312 9%
25-54 323 368 14%
Corrected using 10/24 and 10/25 data from tvbythenumbers
Days –> 14 14
TV Pre Post Pct
P2 1206 1240 3%
25-54 323 348 8%
Media Matters’ data
14 14
MMFA Pre Post
P2 1205 1231 2%
25-54 322 345 7%
Stuart, the fact that different periods produced different results doesn’t surprise me. By my calculations, the 14 day comparison numbers come out to the same %’s that the Media Matters folks arrived at.
Like I said, I am not going to generate another chart, but you are welcome to and I will add it to this post. In the meantime, I have edited the post above to include the 14 day comparison numbers.
Bill,
Thank you.
I’ll see about getting that chart to you tomorrow.
Stuart
Fox News’ ratings spike was no myth after all.
AppleStinx – the significant ratings “spike” became a pretty insignificant blip.
I suspect the increase, if we look at any pre-election time from an off-season year, would be a normal blip due to the upcoming election.
But 2% isn’t a spike. 7% is barely noticeable. And the original data was skewed to make the ratings spike for FoxNews look much more significant.
Simple mistake without any malevolent intent? Probably. But then the reluctance on the part of the author to first, acknowledge his error, secondly, to repair his error, and lastly to make someone else create a new chart is really, really lame.
And for AppleStinx to claim that it’s “petty whining” when the data was skewed to benefit FoxNews in a deceptive way is pretty darn rich. And when one looks at the facts, that many, many groups used that skewed data to claim that FoxNews had seen a ratings spike that doesn’t actually exist, makes that error even more egregious, but somehow you think that it’s whining.
Do you know what the definition of whining is? It’s feeble, peevish complaining. Bringing facts to the table that point out factual errors is not feeble. Stuart didn’t act peevish at all – the people who acted teed off (with no justification, I might add) would be you and Bill Gorman!
That would make you the whiner, AppleStinx. And how like those on the right, using projection to claim that we on the left are behaving in a way that you yourself are actually exhibiting and we are not!
DellDolly:
You looked at the data and chose to see a blip. I looked at the data and choose to see a 12% spike, that from the Primetime A25-54 ratings covering 14 days before and 14 days after the White House attack. Glenn Beck’s spike was even sharper, a +15.3% in the A25-54 demo.
I could run a 1-month before and after study and include data from 11/3.
You lefties come to somebody else’s site, throw a tantrum and don’t relent until your petty demand is met. You got your pound of flesh and are still whining?? What else do you want?? Blood?
As far as I know, the people who run this site are apolitical and not all that interested in cable news but for pertinent ratings.
Fact remains, Fox News DID enjoy a ratings spike since the White House declared “war”.
So why the misinformation? Shoddy research or political agenda?
ignatov, Just poor date range choice. Must everything be a conspiracy?
Yes, because your name is BILL. How can we possibly believe you are not in fact Bill O’Reilly?
ignatov,
Bill graciously re-posted the updated data to reflect the new date ranges. I don’t see any conspiracy here.
This stuff happens all the time.
It’s a non-issue.
Thanks again, Bill.
Everyone is missing out on the fact that very few Americans watch ANY cable news. Fox now averages 2.16 million viewers….there are more than 300 million Americans. When you combine ALL of the cable news shows, it shows that most Americans are NOT interested in any of them. Fox can brag when it has 10% of Americans watching their news/opinion “show”…..but not now tea-baggers.