Digging Deeper on Cable News Partisanship

by Silence Dogood

A lot has been made of White House accusations about Fox News being the Voice of the Republican Party and Rush Limbaugh and worst.

But, what do Viewer numbers show?  Viewers directly vote with their time and viewership. The problem is we cannot find this information in Main Stream Media.  And, the question is, "Why hasn't the New York or LA Times, or NBC, or others looked at the actual real numbers and reported on them"?

Curiosity killed the cat.  So, being a dog lover, I dug it up.

I reviewed a recent poll on Channel Viewership and another on Channel Partisanship.   Combining a Pew Research Poll on Partisanship and Cable News Audiences (Oct. 30, 2009) Nielsen Media Research  Ratings (Oct. 10, 2009) and came up with some interesting numbers:

    Channel Viewership

	Viewers	Rep.	Dem.	Indep.
FOX	691,000	39%	33%	22%
CNN	151,000	23%	51%	18%
MSNBC	235,000	18%	45%	27%

   *   A25-54 demographic, prime time Thursday night

Viewership Hard Numbers *

	Rep.	Dem.	Indep.
FOX	269,490	228,030	152,020
CNN	34,730	77,010	27,180
MSNBC	42,300	105,750	63,450

   *   numbers do not add up due to rounding

What does this jumble mean in terms of absolute Partisan numbers?

First, Fox News rules the Cable Waves. FOX has 79% more (Prime Time) viewers than CNN and MSNBC COMBINED!

Second, we all know that Fox has more Republicans watching than other political persuasions, but the other voting persuasions combined are larger in population than Republicans.

Republicans are only 6% more than Democrats on FOX, while Democrates make up 51% of CNN and are 28% more than Republicans - making CNN a highly partisan station; similar to MSNBC which has an absolute 27% divide between Democrats over Republicans (45% minus 18%).

So, both MSNBC, and CNN  are Partisan extemists when compared to FOX.

Third, 215% MORE DEMOCRATS watch FOX than MSNBC; and almost 300% MORE DEMOCRATS watch FOX than CNN!

Fourth, FOX has 25% more Democrats and Independent viewers than BOTH CNN and MSNBC Combined!

So, when the White House voids FOX, they are losing the absolute majority of the Cable News Market viewed by their own supposed supporters!

Fifth, Fox has has almost 560% MORE INDEPENDENTS watching that CNN, and 240% than MSNBC!

This is the market that the White House has to connect with in order to get anything done!  The Independent swing vote is what creates or destroys all American Political Movements.

Sixth, even if we rid Cable of all Republican viewers (something Keith Olbermann would like to be made into Federal Law, for sure), FOX will still have 25% MORE DEMOCRAT viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined!

Thus, while the White House is accurate in attacking FOX for its large Republican viewership; it is also sadly mistaken because it is also labeling far more Democrats and Independents as radical "Right Wing Nuts" or "Teabaggers" when it does so.

And, that is a challenging thought, unless everyone who watches a specific news show is a Wing Nut, or Teabagger, which is challenging, at best.

Now my own highly prejudicial thoughts.

I try to watch all three channels; but after watching Doberman a few times, I set up some rules (I hate baseless pure ideological attacks).  When I turn on MSNBC, I will only watch it until he starts an ideological rant.  The longest I have watched Olbermann has been about 3 minutes, maybe.  Usually, its closer to 45 seconds, unless I hit a commercial.

CNN was ranked the lowest in these ratings, which was surprising and disappointing.  While CNN clearly leans left, they often have good honest news reports, and even when they get ideological, it is not the kind of "burn them at the stakes because I burned down my own house, therefore they're witches!" kind of rants that Doberman and sometimes Maddow rake out.

CNN's opinions are theirs, but they provide some facts, and are more dispassionate and more rational about their ideological positions. And, in fact, they have been frequently correct in their assessments.  Of course, this falls apart when considering Blitzer's protecting his Favorite Son, President Obama, after Saturday Night Live skewered him for "doing nothing". Never before as a News Show created a show simply to deflect the public's image of a President.

At least, I don't remember them coming forward when Liberals were burning Swastika's and Hitlerian images in their attacks on "W".

Perhaps that is why their ratings slumped. My image of CNN viewers is that they are sincere, serious American's who want unbiased news Reporting. So, maybe CNN lost big after that biased show.

A final Disclaimer:  I did not even try to review the huge Viewership shows of O'Reilly and Glen Beck.  Their shows each average multiples of Prime Time viewship of both CNN and MSNBC combined.  For example, O'Reilly has 3,765,000 viewers to Olbermann's 962,000 or about 4 times the viewership!

Perhaps I will do that review later. But, there doesn't seem to be a reason for that exercise right now.

Also, it has to be noted that the two polls were not on the same day, nor were they coordinated, so some aberrations could occur that we are unable to perceive.

Now, why hasn't main stream media reported these numbers?  Knee jerk conservatives (me sometimes?) can believe this is a "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"  a la Hillary.  But, the truth I think lies in the more base human need to keep one's job.

If FOX is cleaning everyone's clock, like Doberman, then they have to attack FOX at their weakest points.  Since the middle ground of news reporting is taken, they have to attack FOX some other way.  And, what better way to attack FOX than to completely misrepresent FOX's position by misrepresenting smalls snippets of the truth.

More Republicans watch FOX in absolute numbers, and as a percentage as compared to the other lagging channels. So, why not portray it as a radical news channel?  It doesn't hurt their own ratings!

But, when the White House followed that strategy, it was showing itself to be as dumb as both Merkel and her opposition Party labeled them when Obama spoke to the German people in July, 2008.  It is disastrous for the White House to attack Democrats and Independents who are amenable to Obama and possibly his policies.

It is more like committing to a scorched earth policy by starting at your own headquarters.  Good luck with that one!

 Blessings!

Silence Dogood

Obama Cedes the Center

November 6, 2009

Obama Cedes the Center

By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- During long campaign swings in Virginia's recent gubernatorial campaign, Bob McDonnell's staff would count the cars that sported both Obama and McDonnell bumper stickers. These ideologically confused motorists turned out to be an important demographic. On Election Day, according to exit polls, about one in 10 voters who supported Barack Obama in 2008 said they voted for McDonnell, the Republican.

Cable television debates offer a choice between extremes. Competitive statewide elections are a fight for the middle. This is the contest Republicans won on Tuesday.

Given the breadth of Obama's victory a year ago, Republicans had no choice but to seek the support of wavering Obama voters and independents. McDonnell, in particular, went after them with unflappable discipline -- speaking respectfully of Obama, while seizing the momentum of economic discontent. Obama won just under half of Virginia independent voters last year. On Tuesday, McDonnell carried 66 percent.

Both McDonnell and New Jersey's governor-elect, Chris Christie, were blessed with opponents who combined weakness and viciousness in equal measure. But the ideological atmosphere for the election was determined by Obama himself. When I interviewed McDonnell in September, he saw the first signs of an anti-Democratic backlash among Virginia businesspeople who were concerned about the "card check" bill (which would allow union organization without a majority vote). Then a broader resentment about the level of spending and new burdens imposed by cap-and-trade climate legislation. Then the summer of health care reform discontent.
 
The White House now dismisses Tuesday's losses as the reflection of "local issues" -- as though the Virginia outcome was determined by zoning disputes on the proposed site of a new 7-Eleven. When one of the primary concerns of the electorate is the direction of the economy, all politics is national.

By creating deficits unequaled as a percentage of the economy since World War II, by proposing to nearly triple the national debt in the next 10 years, by using the economic crisis as an excuse for the massive expansion of government authority over health care, Obama has become a polarizing figure. Of course, some Republicans thrive on ideological combat and would seek it even if unprovoked. But it is Obama's tax-and-spend ambitions that have united Republicans of every stripe in opposition, put fiscally conservative Democrats in an impossible bind, and ceded the economic center to Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey.

Advocates of purity politics on both left and right see Tuesday's lessons differently. "If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary 'bipartisanship,'" we read in the DailyKos, "you will lose votes." But what could this possibility mean in practice? Would Democrats have saved Virginia and New Jersey if they embraced a single-payer takeover of American health care? If they proposed another trillion dollars in new debt? Yes, Democratic turnout and enthusiasm were down in both states. But this is likely because Obamamania was an acute, not chronic, malady. And though Obama remains fairly popular, his liberal policies look considerably less appealing without his winning personality on the ticket.

Others make a similar argument with a different ideology: If only more conservatives were nominated, such as Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional District, the party might be pure enough to excite the base. Liberal Republicans who eventually endorse Democrats, such as Hoffman's opponent, should probably expect a conservative primary challenge. But this strategy is self-destructive when universalized. Would Republican appeal throughout the Northeast really be expanded by more ideological nominees? Though the Republican Party will remain the conservative party nationally, it is not possible for Republicans to win everywhere with an identical conservative message.

The Republican candidates who won on Tuesday were generally conservative, but not angry. They were supported by the Republican base, but spent most of their time reaching toward the middle. It was a center-right victory in a center-right country.

Politicians who have run for governor -- say, Bill Clinton -- had a good feel for the politics of the center. Obama has yet to demonstrate it. According to the White House, on election night he was "not watching returns" -- displaying a French monarch's indifference to America's shifting middle.

Now comes Obama's largest test, which will determine the ideological atmosphere for the 2010 election. If the president -- opposed by a majority of Americans, with almost no support from the other party -- imposes an ideologically divisive health reform, it will smack of radicalism, reinforce polarization, and may cede the ideological center to Republicans for years to come.

mgerson@globalengage.org

 (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group