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.