Without Keith Olbermann, MSNBC on verge of falling behind CNN

[WI_DEM]

How badly has MSNBC been hurt by the loss of Keith Olbermann? Enough, apparently, to be on the verge of falling back into third place among the cable news networks.
The ratings results for the month of September show that CNN, long relegated to third place in the prime-time cable news competition, is edging its way back up, while MSNBC is moving in the other direction.

For the month, CNN averaged 257,000 viewers in prime time in the category that counts most to the networks — viewers between the ages of 25 and 54 — because that is where the advertising money goes for news programming. MSNBC was just barely ahead with 269,000 viewers. (Neither approached the leader, Fox News, with 526,000).

It's actually worse than those numbers suggest, because MSNBC's numbers were inflated by the GOP's first debate of the month. With both that debate and the CNN tea party debate factored out, CNN was actually in second, ahead of MSNBC.

Both CNN and MSNBC had one especially strong night because of the Republican presidential debates. With those excluded, however, CNN beat MSNBC, 219,000 to 207,000. A year ago, when Mr. Olbermann still occupied the 8 p.m. hour, MSNBC edged CNN by 83,000 viewers, with 256,000 viewers for MSNBC to 173,000 for CNN.
Overall, CNN's numbers are up by 38% in Olbermann's old hour and MSNBC's are down by roughly the same amount. But don't worry, the architect behind Olbermann's departure says it's all good:

Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, had a succinct answer to the question of whether the network is feeling the impact of Mr. Olbermann’s departure: “No.”
He added, “I’m confident that we will increase our ratings as politics become the dominant story over the next year.”

www.dailykos.com

[trueblue2007]

1. because PHIL fired Keith Olberman.... he should be canned!!

[valerief]

2. If we don't tune into Keith, we don't get the latest on OccupyWallStreet.

Lawrence did mention it last night, and it was great, but Rachel and Ed just seem to just only cover the GOP horse race.

[RZM]

3. An hour of cable news commentary sometimes needs to be leavened with a bit of humor

And Larry O sure as hell ain't dong that. Olbermann talked about serious subjects, but he also had the 'Oddball' segment and would bring some humor into his analysis. Over at Fox in the same time slot, Bill-O also sometimes gets a little breezy and cracks a smile now and then. Same thing with Maddow at 9 - she's not afraid to have a little fun with it. But O'Donnell's way too stiff, IMO. I understand that's his style, but I think the most successful cable hosts have to show their lighter side every once in a while. Maybe his problem is that he just doesn't have one ;)

[udbcrzy2]

4. I know what you mean about Larry O

I really miss KO on MSNBC. Keith is smooth and easy to watch.


adding: I did like it when they had Cenk on. He is smooth too, that's an art.

[Raine]

14. Getting rid of Cenk was another stupid decision

I looked forward to his show like I did KO's, now he's gone too. :argh: :-(

[femrap]

5. Their line-up totally sucks.

Put Ed back on at 6:00 and don't repeat Larry O....put him at 9:00. Put Rachel at 8:00. And repeat Ed at 10. Or get some w/ some humor at 10. Repeat Ed at 11.

I don't Keith will go back to MSNBC.

Larry O bugs me....he has Republican lips....way toooooooooo thin.

[RZM]

6. One problem with the 6 and 8 slots is that Fox's strongest shows are on at that time

And I doubt the MSNBC personalities want to have to compete at those slots. If you remember back when Ed was on at 6, he took the odd step of publicly complaining about his ratings compared with those of Special Report. He's way better off competing against Greta von Xenu. Same thing with Rachel . . . I'm sure she'd much rather compete against Hannity than O'Reilly. I don't think it's a coincidence that the new people on the block are getting the harder time slots.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Do you really think there is any demographic that stops to choose

between Rachel and O'Reilly?

Any one with the least inclination toward one would loathe the other. They don't compete, because they do not share the same audience base. It's like saying that poetry readings compete with WWF.

[RZM]

16. I'm not so sure about that

No doubt there is data out there on it. Most people aren't ideologues who automatically reject one or another network (that being said, probably a higher percentage of people who love cable news shows are). Also, I think even many of those highly ideological people are 'closet watchers.' Sometimes they probably tune in to shows with hosts they hate in order to vent or throw things at the screen.

But many more people have no problem getting their information from both left and right wing sources. DU represents a segment of the political spectrum where that isn't as that common (though probably more common than is admitted), but many other people have no such qualms. I'm one of them, actually. I don't watch a whole lot of cable news anymore, but I frequently flip between the major networks when I do watch, though I avoid some of the shows I find the most boring.

No doubt you remember back when magazines were more popular how many people had subscriptions to both The New Republic and National Review.

[rurallib]

7. comcast will probably be using these numbers to ax the liberals

so they too can march in the right wing parade next year.

One reason I pretty much quit watching MSNBC is because every discussion has to include a crazy fucking republican. If I wanted to know what the wingers think(?) I can turn on any of the 95% of the media that they control. I don't care what Steele or Buchanan or Kibbe or any of those buttholes think.

[SoCalDem]

10. yep..every show has "minders" who cleverly gobble up most of the air time

and interrupt every liberal on the panel

[digitaln3rd]

8. Maybe they should try being a Fox News clone and actually... I don't know.. practice journalism?

Shocking concept for American Media, I know.

Objective journalism? Ffff. Where's the money in that?

[shireen]

9. MSNBC still has a strong team led by Rachel.

KO was a big loss for them. But Rachel is amazing. If anything, she'll raise the ratings over time. I like Lawrence O'Donnell, but would watch KO over him, and catch his show later in the night. Ed Shultz ... i like the guy, but i wish he'd stop talking over his guests -- fine for radio, makes lousy tv.

Besides, I think O'Donnell's 8pm slot puts him in competition with Anderson Cooper, who is very popular. And that twit, Piers Morgan, gets a lot of Cooper's audience which is too bad because they're missing the most intelligent news/commentary hour (TRMS) on tv. So i'm not surprised CNN is doing well.

[bdamomma]

11. not related to subject matter

but the Young Turks are going to be on Current saw on Current tv advertisement.

[Raine]

12. BIG mistake to get rid of KO, ever since he's been gone

MSNBC just isn't the same for me. It sure isn't must see TV anymore. x(

[ThomWV]

13. If it weren't for Rachel I'd block them from our receiver

[RZM]

17. Just a question here

But why would anybody block a channel from their receiver? I understand when it comes to parental controls . . . if you don't want your children watching shows with certain types of adult content, etc. But a news channel? I just don't see the point. Can't you just not tune in?

I'm not trying to belittle you here - I'm honestly curious about the rationale behind it.