The battle heats up in US Cable News

I have been following the ratings battle between the major US cable news channels, and I have to say, I have never seen a night so competitive as Sunday 26th November 2006. The numbers as reported by Inside Cable News and TV Newser are incredible.

In what is usually refered to as the "money" demo, Adults 25-54 years old, in PrimeTime, MSNBC beat Fox News Channel tied for the number 1 spot by just 3,000 viewers (163,000 to 160,000) and CNN was just 28,000 viewers behind.

Looking inside to the individual hours, the picture is even more interesting in the 'money' demo. MSNBC won the 5pm hour with 164,000 viewers, compared to FNC's 137,000 and CNN's 132,000. The next hour was won by CNN with 208,000 viewers, compared to MSNBC's 111,000 and FNC's paltry 86,000.

Fox News took the 7pm hour, but the biggest surprise is that MSNBC won both at 8pm and 9pm. MSNBC had 186,000 and 192,000 with Fox getting 157,000 and 140,000, and CNN getting 73,000 and 162,000 viewers in each respective hour. This means that Planet Mancow ended up in 3rd place!

Fox then took the 10pm hour but the 11pm hour went again to MSNBC, and by quite a margin. 226,000 viewers watched MSNBC in that hour, compared to 137,000 watching Fox News and 92,000 watching CNN.

Even in total viewers, the ratings battle was closer than normal. FNC took the 5pm hour there by just 25,000 viewers (581,000 to 556,000). CNN took the 6pm hour by 115,000 viewers over Fox News (581,000 to 466,000). Fox took the 7pm hour emphatically (570,000 to CNN's 408,000) and held onto that through the 8pm hour (720,000 to MSNBC's 578,000).

However, they were beaten into third place by CNN (531,000) and MSNBC (499,000) in the 9pm hour. Fox restored their lead for the 10pm hour (491,000 to CNN's 409,000), but MSNBC took the 11pm hour (416,000 to FNC 336,000).

Even the prime-time total was closer than normal, with Fox winning by just under 50,000 viewers from MSNBC who were just 5,000 viewers ahead of CNN.

The Monday numbers are back to relative normality, although in the money demo, MSNBC was second to Fox News in primetime, with Headline News thrid and CNN relegated to 4th place. MSNBC came second in the 8pm, 9pm and 11pm hours with Headline News taking second in the 10pm hour. The total day money demo numbers were close too for the minor placings, with less than 25,000 viewers separating CNN, MSNBC and Headline News.

There's little doubt in my mind that the ratings in this particular race are going to be very interesting to watch and read. Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC are definitely going to be duking it out over the following weeks and months for dominance, and I will definitely be following developments in this story.

Time to have some fun.

It's not all about politics and media here, we do like to have some fun, and WNBC New York have a couple of fun things on their My Weekend section.

Two particular slideshows caught my attention. One was the most annoying songs of all time, and the other was the most annoying celebrities. View both and see what you think.

Media Research Centre shoots itself in foot!

The Media Research Center says on its mission statement, "The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media." Then in describing their history, the say... "On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC)."

What they really want is a media with a conservative bias, like that of Fox News Channel. The trouble is, they don't seem to know how to present that. On their front page today (Sunday 26th November 2006) is a story with the headline, "Rather: FNC Biased, Gets White House Talking Points". However, what they have written below it, comes across as a slip up on their part, and really rather funny.

'Dan Rather, who doesn't recognize any liberal bias in himself or the mainstream media, was quick to see it on Fox News Channel, telling HBO's Bill Maher: "Fox News operates in at least a somewhat different way than every other news organization that I know” and “we know that they get talking points from the White House."'

Dan Rather, seeing Liberal bias on the Fox News Channel??? I don't think so...

Al-Jazeera English (formerly International) launches.

So, we finally have it, the launch of the English language version of Al-Jazeera. The website has been updated with a new look as well.

My early judgements, based upon what I have seen? Well, I can't say too much yet, as it is only the first day. But my first impression after watching the news, was that, whilst I felt informed and updated about certain stories, it didn't leave me feeling briefed.

Fox News leaves me the same way. I tend to feel like ormed about the current Republican/Conservative talking points, rather than briefed on the news.

On a related note, the anti-Fox News website Newshounds highlights the fact that AJE is available in the UK on Sky Digital, which is part of News Corp which also owns the Fox News Channel. The report alledges hypocrisy by News Corp, supplying the channel to the UK and Ireland on Sky Digital, whilst at the same time using Fox News to villify it and brand it a terrorist network.

Whilst the allegation might not be without some degree of merit, the truth of the matter is rather more complicated.

In the UK, Sky Digital is not allowed to refuse anyone carriage on their platform should they be asked to carry a channel, as long as the relevant fees are paid. So whatever Rupert may feel about Al-Jazeera, there is nothing that he can do to prevent it being broadcast in the UK.

Whilst the majority of Americans polled do not want the channel, there is nothing that says that couldn't change. I wonder when we will see the first cable operator decide to carry the channel in the US.

Viewpoint on video

Okay, here goes. The first video edition of Viewpoint is up and, if my HTML skills are up to it, should be embeded down below. If it isn't, then the link to the video will be.


http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=4c08c4452371e6af9b1482c02b8f4ef2.1121416

AIM thinks "Conservative" Fox News is turning "Liberal", but Newsbusters doesn't!

I sometimes wonder just how grounded in reality some of these political writers are, for about a second, then I remember I know the answer.

The Editor of the AIM Report, Cliff Kincaid, put out an article this week claiming that... "...the conservative Fox News Channel gave liberal Democrat Harold Ford another big boost on Wednesday night in his critical Tennessee Senate race."

Gee, Cliff. Thank you for confirming what many of us already knew, that Fox News Channel has a Conservative/Republican bias and is neither "fair" nor "balanced". But then, Cliff shocks us by telling us... "Just days before the election, however, Fox News seems to be doing all that it can do to push him over the finish line ahead of (Republican) Bob Corker. Fair and balanced? Not in this contest."

Is Cliff actually suggesting that the Fox News Channel is losing its Conservative bias and gaining a Liberal one?

The funny thing is, Cliff is the only columnist I've seen talking about this. Newsbusters, the blog of the conservative Media Research Center, hasn't mentioned anything about Fox News turning liberal and neither has the anti-Fox News site, Newshounds, which still accuses Fox News of trying to scaremonger voters into voting Republican in the upcoming mid-term elections.

I guess then that the jury still thinks that Fox News is conservative.

Viewpoint Extra: AL-Jazeera International - Do Conservatives want to see it?

Couple of things to add to my previous post about Conservatives and AJI.

First, the exceedingly right wing Accuracy In Media has two columns about the channel. Matthew Hickman's "Briefing" column uses all the traditional Republican/Conservative talking points about the channel, and Cliff Kincaid's Media Monitor column draws comparisons between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq and accuses Al-Jazeera of being a propoganda network.

On the other side of the coin, ForeignPolicy.com provides a more insightful analysis into the channel. Interestingly, it says that AJI is biased, but no more so than Fox News than CNN.

All news services have at least a small degree of bias, mainly in the choice of stories to cover and the angles those stories cover. However, Fox News Channel seems to have a greater degree of bias than most. They seem to have a complete editorial stance on everything. I have noticed in recent weeks that some so-called scandals featuring Democrats, which were low-priority stories really, got almost wall-to-wall coverage on FNC, whilst similar low-level so-called scandals concerning Republicans, were ignored. Now does that sound "Fair" and "Balanced" to you?

I personally am looking forward to the launch of AJI. Unlike the Republicans/Conservatives, I will not judge the channel, until I see its content.

Al-Jazeera International: Do Conservatives want to see it?

There have been many rumours around the net about the launch of Al-Jazeera International. So many and for so long, that this has become one of the most anticipated launches this year, on a par with the new channels from Channel 5 that launched recently, five US and five life, and the soon to launch international news channel France 24. But apparently not everyone is welcoming the new channel with open arms.

The conservative talk show hosts on US radio have been very negative towards Al-Jazeera, primarily because it has broadcast video messages from terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda. When CNN recently broadcast footage they obtained from a terrorist organisation in Iraq, the conservative side of politics went into massive uproar. The conservatives don't like anybody broadcasting what they call "...enemy propoganda..." and yet, if you are to truly understand any story, you have to be able to see it from both sides and all angles.

Recently, a column about Al-Jazeera International appeared in the Philadephia Enquirer, written by Gail Shister. In this column, Gail is very negative about AJI's launch, prsenting a lot of negative viewpoints about the channel. One very telling viewpoint, came from Matthew Felling of the Centre for Media and Public Affairs. On it's website, it declares itself to be.. "...a nonpartisan research and educational organization which conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment media."

However, the truth offered by Mr Felling's comments to Gail Shister are very telling. In the column, Matthew Felling says that AJI's launch "...has about as much chance of happening as Rosie O'Donnell getting a show on Fox News... Even if AJI manages to happen everywhere around the world except the States, it won't make it. America was going to be the crown jewel of their entire enterprise. You either raise all the sails on the mast or wait until the wind is right."

Well, perhaps the CMPA should conduct better research, perhaps with a more open mind. I can watch the test transmissions on AJI on my satellite system here in the UK and I can say with some assurance that I believe this launch is going to happen. The video tests are definitely coming towards a conclusion, the Electronic Programme Guide data, which is a key indicator of readiness, is there, and for the first time, there has been an official press release naming an exact launch date. No media organisation ever announces an exact date publicly until they know they are ready, and all previous launch dates were either actually intended target dates, not confirmed launch dates, or they were nothing more than internet speculation.

Note to CMPA: Do better research before making comments, and try not to tow the conservative line. You are supposed to be non-partisan!

LIndsay Lohan - Halloween Vamp!

Before I do the report, let me put this report into a personal context. First of all, I am not a fan of the culture of celebrating celebrity, or as I sometimes refer to it, the religion of celebrity. Some people almost seem to worship some of these people as gods and goddesses. Quite frankly, celebrities are not gods, they're just ordinary human beings, like the rest of us. I find it shameful that tabloids and celebrity magazines such as OK! and Hello both build up these people to be like gods and goddesses and then to demolish these same people and dismiss them like so much garbage.

When I read about celebrities, I have no interest in their indiscretions and less interest in their private lives. The only things I am interested in is their work, and their public lives, NOT their private lives. It is not our place to intrude in anybody's private life.

The second piece of context in this, is that I absolutely abhor Halloween, and especially the culture of "Trick Or Treat" and the commercialism that is a part of this. So, between these two major negatives, the very fact that this one even gets onto the blog at all, is actually quite an achievement in itself.

So, to the story. Now Lindsay Lohan has been doing a lot to get attention for what she's been wearing, or in some cases, not wearing, but this time, she gets my attention for what she wears to a Hallowwen party in Hollywood, and oh boy! does she get out attention.

Slightly goth looking, the black basque was teamed up with sexy black underpants, stockings and high heels. Her make up is very vampish. She used black nail varnish and blood red lipstick to good effect. She also had armsleeves but one was black and the other white, both very different from each other.

Have a look at the pictures of her outfit. It is worth a look.

Ratings Review: BARB Week Ending 15th October 2006

It has taken a day or so of analysis of the publicly available BARB data, but there are one or two interesting conclusions out of this week's data.

It doesn't happen very often with multi-channel programmes, and it is more memorable because of it, but one programme on one of the multi channels did reach the 2 million mark. It was Sky Sports 1's coverage of England's international football game, which scored a massive 2.03 million viewers. This helped the channel to gain a 2.0% share / 15.3% weekly reach.

In the wake of the recent Sunday Times story about NASN possibly being sold to ESPN, I thought it might be a good idea to check out the ratings data. Unfortunately, there is no publicly available ratings data for NASN, or indeed any of the Setanta channels. However, I am able to look at ratings for the channels owned by Disney, ESPN's parent company.

ABC1 dropped to 0.3% share / 5.6% weekly reach.

Disney Channel achieved 0.4% share / 5.5% weekly reach, whilst its +1 got 0.2% share / 4.5% weekly reach.

Disney Cinemagic got only 0.1% share / 2.2% weekly reach, whilst the +1 got 0.1% share / 2.1% weekly reach.

And finally, ESPN Classic, barely registers in terms of share and only 0.9% in terms of weekly reach.

ESPN have beenn trying to get into the European market for years, part owning EuroSport for a time, but have never truly broken through. A deal for ESPN to buy NASN may well be on the cards. We'll wait and see.

ITV2 once again wins the ratings battle this week with 2.1% share, and ITV4 is improving ratings wise, now up to 0.6% share with a 13.3% weekly reach.

Sky One's recent steal of Lost from Channel 4 may well be the boost it needs ratings wise, as they still languish at 1.6% share / 22.3% weekly reach. This is despite a good 1.189 million viewers tuning in for the Sunday premiere of an episode of The Simpsons. In fact, there are no top 10 entries in the Sky One chart for any other programme, which kinda highlights how poor their shcedule really is. Unsurprisingly, Sky Three gets more viewers than Sky Two, but there is little really between them. Sky Two is 0.5% share / 12.6% weekly reach, whilst Sky Three is 0.6% share / 16.4% weekly reach.

Other programmes of note scoring well, include the More 4 premiere of the controversial documentary-style drama, Death Of A President, which gained 293,000 viewers on Monday 9th October. Two repeat showings on Friday and Saturday BOTH scored over 130,000 viewers, putting the three showings at numbers 1, 6 and 7 in the More 4 Top 10. Indeed, the Channel 4 multi-channels did well this week, with all of E4's top 10 shows gaining over 300,000 viewers, which demonstrates an incredible degree of consitency, and Film 4's showing of Forrest Gump got 638,000 viewers, which boosted the channel's ratings this week to 0/8% share / 14.4% weekly reach. Film 4 has definitely benefited tremendously ratings wise from moving away from a subscription model.

With most +1 channels, they significantly less viewers than the original. However, this does not apply to the Travel Channel. In terms of Weekly reach, the original gets 126,000 viewers whilst the +1 manages 207,000. Not exactly something to celebrate though!

That performance though does keep them out of this week's bottom 5, by about 3000 viewers. Not exactly a lot, but worth a glass of something strong, none the less.

In reverse order, then, at number 5 is All In Sport, the repackaged Poker Channel, with a paltry 123,000 viewers. Number 4 is Eat Cinema, with 107,000. That's more than double any of the bottom 3 channels. At number 3 is Sky Travel Shop with just 49,000 viewers,only marginally better than Number 2's Redemption TV with just 45,000. But the worst performing channel this week, is MUTV with just 42,000 viewers weekly reach.

AIMing wide of the mark, with old news

Cliff Kincaid should really be a little more on the ball than this if he wants his "Accuracy In Media" organisation to be treated seriously, and do a little more research.

In his latest Media Monitor column, dated October 24th 2006, Cliff highlights a headline on Al-Jazeera's english language website "Death Becomes Bush" which is a headline for a story about the Film 4 / Newmarket Films production "Death Of A President" which recieved an international premiere at the 2006 Toronto International Film Feastival in September and won the Fipresci Prize. It was also aired recently on both More 4 and Channel 4 in the UK.

The Media Monitor column is full of the usual Republican talking points about Al-Jazeera, referring to the fact that it airs a lot of terrorist produced video and stating that it's another reason why Al-Jazeera International should be kept out of the USA.

Now, the problem here is that the story Cliff Kincaid is referring to, is 12 days old. The date stamp on the Al-Jazeera story is October 12th 2006. It has taken Cliff 12 days to write this article and put it on his website. The timestamp on the RSS feed indicates it was added at 6am UK time. I picked up the RSS feeds at about 10.30 am UK time, and sat down to write this response. I advise you to look at the time stamp on this article. It has taken me far less time to put together this response, including the research of the various articles and items, that I have linked in this story.

I would also advise Cliff Kincaid to go and watch the film, when it is released to cinemas in the US on October 27th. He might discover, as I did when I watched it on More 4, that the real story in the film, is not the assassination of President Bush, despite the title, but how a country copes with an event like this, and how it can get it wrong, even when the evidence points to something completely different.

The film is controversial, of that there can be no doubt. It is also very provocative. But, if you go into it with an open mind, not a closed one, you'll discover a film that challenges and provokes thought. But then, I have yet to discover an open-minded conservative.

Bias In The Media - Don't conservatives get it?

I have noticed something in my observations of the various blogs and commentators on the internet, and that is that there is no single "enemy" organisation for conservatives. Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Natalie Solent and others regularly target almost all other mainstream media outlets. The BBC, The CBC, The ABC in Australia, US network newscasts, Al-Jazeera and Air America Radio are among the favourites, as are The New York Times and The Washington Post, but nearly every news organisation cops it from conservatives, except one.

Fox News Channel is about the only major news provider than conservatives do not attack for reasons of bias. Why? Because Fox News is as biased as they are.

They accuse everybody else of being biased, and yet cannot see their own bias. Perhaps they should challenge their own opinions every once in a while, like I do on a daily basis. Maybe they'd realise that it's just slightly possible that the majority may be right and they may be wrong.

Mixed Feelings

The touch of skin
the closeness of being
the heat of passion
the pleasure of joining.

The feeling of loneliness
the abscence of love
the coldness of life
the pain of rejection.

The seductiveness of sex
the beauty of womanhood
the power of lust
the need for love.

First, Fair, Fox? A fair and balanced commentary

The world of 24 hour news channels is as varied and diverse as the news itself. Some, like CNN and Sky News, have been around so long that they have become familiar and accepted by us all, even those who don’t watch 24 hour news. Some, like BBC News 24, have developed to become well-respected services, whilst others, like the ITV News Channel, didn’t survive long enough to grow into the potential they were showing.

But none have ever created as much controversy, in both political and media circles, as the Fox News Channel.

Back in the mid 1990s, several commentators on the right wing of the political spectrum in the United States saw the media as generally too favourable to the liberal agenda, with not enough pressure being applied to the then-US President, Bill Clinton. That was all to change over the next few years – but nobody knew that then.

In 1996, with Clinton fighting for a second term in office, NBC closed a channel called America’s Talking. It was basically television’s version of the many talk radio stations that are available throughout the United States. It had been spun off from CNBC, the Consumer News and Business Channel, launching on July 4th 1994, and was based at CNBC’s then headquarters at Fletcher Avenue in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

The trouble was, it was a spectacular flop. It had never gained much of an audience, and little cable carriage. The only show to survive the channel was Politics with Chris Matthews which moved to CNBC and was retitled Hardball with Chris Matthews. The show then later moved to MSNBC.

America’s Talking was closed to make way for an additional news channel from Microsoft and NBC, called MSNBC. But in many ways, America’s Talking only moved networks, from NBC to Fox. In 1996, Roger Ailes, who at the time was head of both America’s Talking and CNBC, was approached by Rupert Murdoch to launch a new news channel. Murdoch, who also part-owned British Sky Broadcasting, had been behind the launch of Sky News on February 5th 1989, and wanted to launch another news channel, this time in the US.

However, unlike Sky News, the conservative Murdoch wanted this news channel to counter some of the “liberal bias” that he perceived in the US media. Ailes agreed to head up the channel and managed to persuade some of his colleagues from CNBC and America’s Talking to join him at the new venture, notably, Steve Doocy from America’s Talking AM, and Neil Cavuto from CNBC’s Power Lunch and Market Wrap. Both are still with Fox News Channel today.

Another commentator who has pretty much been there from the beginning is Bill O’Reilly. He had been a local news reporter for some years, before becoming a correspondent for CBS News. He was based in Buenos Aires and covered both the Falklands War and the El Salvador war. In 1986, he jumped across to ABC as a correspondent for the main news programme, ABC World News Tonight.

In 1989, he joined Fox’s syndicated current affairs programme, Inside Edition as Senior Correspondent and reserve anchor for Sir David Frost. However, David left the show and Bill O’Reilly became the Senior Anchor. In 1995, O’Reilly was replaced by Deborah Norville, who had anchored NBC News at Sunrise, and was famously remembered as “the other woman” in the Today set alongside hosts Bryant Gumbel and Jane Pauley. When Pauley left Today, Norville was promoted to co-host with Bryant Gumbel, but disastrous ratings followed and she left the show, initially only on maternity leave to have a child, but since temporary co-host Katie Couric had helped boost ratings, NBC announced that Norville would not return. Deborah Norville still holds the fort at Inside Edition today.

In 1996, Bill O’Reilly joined Fox News Channel as host of The O’Reilly Report, which later became The O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly has faced much the same claims about his own political standing as Fox News has about the channel’s perceived political bias. He has often been referred to as a Conservative pundit, despite constant denials.

The programme advertises itself as a “No-Spin Zone”. His style is often confrontational, and always direct. He described himself is his book, The O’Reilly Factor, as being “conservative on some issues, liberal on others and sane on most.” Exact percentages, though, have yet to be determined.

The Fox News Channel itself has been on the wrong end of many accusations about its own bias. The infamous documentary, Outfoxed, directed by Robert Greenwald, made a lot of claims regarding Fox News and its perceived right-wing bias. The film had been researched by a team of volunteers sitting down and watching Fox News Channel non-stop for a period of several months. That research project has gained a life of its own outside the film and continues online under the name News Hounds, with the slogan, “We watch FOX so you don’t have to.”

However, the film has received substantial criticism itself. Claims, for example, of editing clips so that comments were taken out of their real context, and former employees who in fact never worked for Fox News, continue to hang over the production.

Personal ‘Talking Points’

Having been a fairly consistent viewer of the channel over the past six months or so, I have to say that, personally, I find some things about the channel quite disagreeable. So, in true Fox News style, here are my own ‘Talking Points’ about the channel.

For a start, I do not like the channel’s reliance on dramatic music and sound effects, ominous sounding stings and flashy graphics. It says to me that the channel places more emphasis on the presentation of the story than on the content. To my mind, that is like putting the cart before the horse.

I also find the channel’s continual assertions about supposedly being “Fair and Balanced” come across too strongly, as though they want that impression to be uppermost in people’s minds when talking about the channel. It reminds me of the quote from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

I also dislike the way some anchors and presenters interrupt some of their guests when the guest is giving a different stance to the anchor/presenter. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the presenter or anchor taking the opposite viewpoint or taking a challenging viewpoint in an interview situation – it’s their job after all, and they want to get the best from the interviewee. However, by talking over their victim, it gives the impression that the viewpoint they are taking is in fact their own strongly held belief, and rather than trying to get the best from the interviewee, they are in fact trying to talk them down and make them look bad.

I find the ‘Fox News Alert’ use to be inconsistent. Sometimes, you hear those sweeping sounds, and that ominous chord, and it gets followed by a very important piece of breaking news. On other occasions, such as one time during an edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto, the sting was played, and then they proceeded to announce that the UN was still in deadlock on the third day of discussions about Iran. That’s hardly breaking news. In fact, when it comes to the UN, it practically seems to be business as usual: I don’t see what the justification was for playing the Alert.

I personally dislike the way News and Opinion get mixed in the schedule. The channel comes across much more like a News/Talk radio station than a 24 hour television news channel. Their breakfast programme, Fox and Friends has discussion between the hosts at the top of the hour about the top stories as they see them, rather than just reporting the facts. Also, some of the hosts seem to regard themselves as the stars of their shows, instead of being just a facilitator. I find this especially to be the case with Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. I have never liked the style of news programmes where the anchor’s name is part of the title. For instance, why does it have to be NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams? Why not just “NBC Nightly News”? I do not see these people as the stars of their particular shows: I see them as people with big egos who need to be taken down a peg or two.

Whilst Fox News might be one of the higher-rated news channels in the US, it has far fewer viewers over here in the UK. Official BARB ratings show that whilst BBC News 24 reaches 5.7 million viewers a week and Fox News’s sister channel, Sky News, reaches 4.2 million viewers over the same period, Fox News limps in with around 200,000. While it might be to the taste of many Americans, and some other viewers around the world, it seems that Brits are not so embracing of it.

Those are my ‘talking points’. And one more thing: while you’ve been reading this article, you have been in a ‘No-Spin Zone’.

(Also published on Transdiffusion.)