Megyn Kelly's FOX debut as the networks' prime time newscaster pitted her against MSNBC's top rated show, poster girl Rachel Maddow, in that time slot.
Last Tuesday, the day after its debut, “The Kelly File” doubled its audience, crushing “The Rachel Maddow Show,” in the ratings competition.
In fact, Kelly's ratings were so good, MSNBC chief Phil Griffin made a major stink, whining that Kelly's ratings were 'impossible'.
So Neilson conducted an investigation into the ratings for Kelly's show...and found them to be totally accurate.
I can't imagine why there was even a question. Aside from MSNBC's dubious content, just look at the two newscasters. Who would you rather watch read the news? Whose voice would you rather listen to?
FOX has always beaten MSNBC in the ratings anyway, simply because it is relatively fair and balanced and includes diverse points of view as opposed to the biased, Pravda-like regime touting echo chamber you get at MSNBC.
Maddow audience will likely continue to shrink as it narrows down to an audience composed of the True Believers, but that's about it.
10 comments:
who's the guy in the photo below megyn's photo?
hahaha, just like Air America radio.
One is good, one is not. One is hot, the other is not. Kelly wins both
Right on! Being pretty and popular means that your argument is correct. Even an idiot knows that.
Hey 'Freedom'..it has nothing to do with prettiness and everything to do with the ugliness expressed in what is put out on the air. Get it?
What was that about idiots?
Fox News fair and balanced? Yeah, right. Lol. Of course, MSNBC isn't either. I've watched both channels. Fox is conservative. MSNBC is liberal. And anyone with half a brain knows it. But regarding politics, it's not who kicks butt in cable news, it's who gets the most votes. Democrats are the clear current winner. They won White House (again), kept the senate, and got 1.4 million more votes in the house of reps (though repubs have a majority because of a little trick called gerrymandering).
Anonymous 11:31 PM,
I believe we need to get our terminologies straightened out.
FOX, which includes commentators like Juan Williams, Greta Van Sustern, Susn Estrich and Chris Wallace (all registered Democrats and Esztrich and Williams are openly Leftist)is fairly centrist, although there best selling talent like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are unabashed conservatives. They allow all types of views on the air.
MSNBC is Leftist, not Liberal. They are an echo chamber, which is why Juan Wiliams was fired..for deviating form the Leftist catechism.Let's see what the dictionary has to say, shall we? :
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Only a biased moron would fail to conclude that FOX comes a lot closer to that definition that MSNBC does.
As for your remarks about votes...we have a system that is based on something called apportionment when it comes to the House, one representative for a given number of people. Both sides use gerrymandering, the selective carving out of districts to ensure a majority for their party, but I'd argue that the Democrats are far more egregious, especially since their strongholds are in the urban areas of more populous states with a lot more scope for gerrymandering, as you can see in Democrat controlled states like California.
This also aids voter fraud, which is an old trick, as you put it, that explains how a number of Democrats get elected.
In fact, the worst gerrymandering by Democrats is done on a racist basis, to ensure that a quota of black congressmen get elected far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.
As no less that tax fraudster and co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus Charlie Rangel admitted,without gerrymandering the CBC could meet in a phone booth.
I guess it's not racism when Democrats do it, hmmm?
Thank you for educating me. I now owe u so much.
One thing I'll say in the spirit of agreement is: if dems had swept the 2010 (census year) state-level elections like the GOP did, the dems would have gerrymandered states to be in their favor. But the repubs had the power, so there u have it.
Also, by its very nature, the house of reps should accurately reflect the will of the American people. This current house does not. In contrast, the senate was designed to give smaller states equal representation so that low-population states like Wyoming have two US senators just like my state, California, does.
Okay, I'm done. I won't be stopping by to read your nifty blog ever again so I'll take this chance to say one more thing: goodbye.
On the off chance you stop by to read this (and I'm pretty sure you will).
I'm not trying to be condescending. I merely point out that I believe you misunderstand a few things. BTW, the 'good vs. evil', Democrat vs. Republican stuff plays right into the hands of the political class. It's exactly how they want us to think. In reality, our two party system, with both parties checking and balancing each other is the optimum...provided both parties are mainly composed of sane people interested in the good of the cou8ntry. I don't think that's the case just now.
I have difficulty understanding why you would feel that the current House of Representatives doesn't reflect the will of the people. Since each member is elected individually by the people in their district, how could it not?
It might also occur to you that the reason the Republicans 'had the power' as you put it was a reaction against one party rule in DC.
I believe you (or rather, your wallet at tax time) are observing personally how one party rule in California is going. As for gerrymandering, you might find it interesting how the Democrats gamed and perverted what was supposed to be non-partisan redistricting for their own purposes.
Where we differ is that I would be just as outraged if Republicans did this.
You're welcome to stay or go, and either is fine by me. I understand how having your preconceptions challenged might be uncomfortable
I would like to know why no one seems to take Cruz's statement seriously - "women should not be punished for an illegal abortion" -
yet others who break the law should be punished - the key word here is "illegal" - AND CRUZ is telling women it's ok to break
the law - SHAME, SHAME - that should tell the voters just how he feels - I wonder what else Mr Cruz thinks is ok to break law -
Sounds to me like Mr Cruz and Hillary actually do have a lot in common
Post a Comment