Rachel Maddow's Audience Down Nearly 55%

[krawhitham]

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/30/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-adults-25-54-audience-down-nearly-55-since-q4-2008/21725

MSNBC’s 9pm Rachel Maddow Show has seen its adults 25-54 audience, the demo that cable news advertisers target, fall by nearly 55% from Q4 2008 through Q2 2009.



http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/30/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-adults-25-54-audience-down-nearly-55-since-q4-2008/21725

[jefferson_dem]

1. Ouch.

That's not promising.

[JamesA1102]

133. That's cause she forgot who her audience is.

If people want to see the President bashed every night, they'll turn on FAUX.

[shadowknows69]

139. Oh fucking please. Rachel is one of the more thorough journalists on TV

Sorry if she keeps bringing up inconvenient truths about our President. I think her numbers speak more about her audience than her ability. People don't like hearing bad things about their side and you just proved it with your post.

[JamesA1102]

166. That's not the point.

The point is why her ratings have fallen 55%. And if she wants to stay on the air she shouldn't drive away her viewers.

[ThomWV]

2. She is the only one I watch regularly and the only one I trust to be honest with her viewers

[KamaAina]

3. Isn't all cable news down significantly since the election?

Why pick on Rachel? :shrug:

[blue_onyx]

8. Yes, rating are down

because it's no longer election season:

June 11 2009

The O’Reilly Factor— 3,438,000 viewers
Campbell Brown— 747,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann – 1,193,000 viewers
CNBC Reports— 148,000 viewers
Nancy Grace – 985,000 viewers

Hannity– 2,597,000 viewers
Larry King Live— 826,000 viewers
Rachel Maddow Show – 1,013,000 viewers
Marijuana Inc — 357,000 viewers
Lou Dobbs- 358,000 viewers

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/12/cable-news-ratings-for-june-11-2009/20561#more-20561


October 24 2008

The O’Reilly Factor— 3,441,000 viewers
Campbell Brown— 1,166,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann– 2,451,000 viewers
Nancy Grace – 1,128,000 viewers

Hannity & Colmes— 2,899,000 viewers
Larry King Live– 1,752,000 viewers
Rachel Maddow Show— 2,243,000 viewers
On the Money– 188,000 viewers
Lou Dobbs- 480,000 viewers

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-october-24/6929


Rachel's ratings, along with all the news shows, will probably go back up around this time next year, as the 2010 election gets closer.

[Johonny]

19. is it me or do the FOX numbers show some type of difference

Either Hannity and O'Reilly have way more dedicated fans or I say there something rotten with those numbers. I mean O'Reilly's numbers haven't moved at all, which seem completely illogical.

[blue_onyx]

27. I don't think anything is "rotten" with the numbers

In June, there's nothing else on TV, so that's probably helping the Fox shows. Here are the May numbers:

Thursday May 7, 2009

THE OREILLY FACTOR 2,339,000
HANNITY 1,619,000
COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN 803,000
RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 715,000

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/08/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-may-7/18355


I guess you could say that Fox viewers are more loyal, particularly O' Reilly's viewers. I watch Rachel's show but if there's something else I want to watch or I have something to do, I skip it. Maybe Fox viewers have nothing better to do than watch Fox.

[Johonny]

101. The numbers still seem odd

It looks like June numbers did rise. But FOX numbers jump up to pre-election levels. The other channels don't. I don't think nothing else on TV answers why. It's summer time, people go outside and do stuff. Maybe the other poster is right and FOX is collecting all the crazy by being anti-Obama, but really I would think they'd already max that audience. It just seems really odd.

[dmr]

94. O'Reilly's audience didn't increase during an election year

Which is how I look at it. Meaning he has no relevance beyond his little idiotic truculent world.

[burning rain]

98. Fox is benefitting from being the opposition channel now.

Everyone knows Fox is pro-Republican and anti-Obama in particular. Just before the election it was the other way around, and Olbermann and Maddow were cleaning up; indeed Countdown drew more viewers than The O'Reilly Factor on a number of occasions there.

[krawhitham]

10. Nope sadly Fox is on pace for best year ever

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/fox-news-on-track-for-bes_n_223405.html

[lunatica]

15. I think that's a false positive for FOX

Just like Limbaugh's numbers don't show the truth. Lots and lots of people who watch FOX and listen to Limbaugh don't agree with them at all and are watching just to hear the latest craziness.

[Mudoria]

26. I guess that's one way to spin it

You may have a future in politics.

[Suji to Seoul]

33. I would rather spin it as saying

Conservaturds and Republitards have their pravda and watch it religiously in order to maintain their illusion that they matter.

Drones do what they are told. The reason RW print media is dyings quickly (Moonie Times loses money, NY Post lost over 20% of its readers, Boston Herald sucks, etc) is because wingnuts would rather passively be told things in easy, bite sized pieces (like Fixed Noise does) rather than actively read anything, as reading is for eggheads.

Thinking people can get their news from NUMEROUS sources. The print media for NORMAL papers is losing readership, but not like the wingnut papers.

So, Olbermann and Maddow will be second to Fixed Noise bullshit artists because conservatards are, if anything, loyal to their masters.

One other spin is simple: 3.5 million watch O'Reilly, and 306.5 million don't.

[lunatica]

124. You probably think I'll take that as an insult

But you would be wrong because I don't give a rat's ass what you think.

[yodoobo]

44. It doesn't matter why they watch

Advertisers make or break a show and they don't care about the message.

advertisers could care less if people watch to laugh at the pundit, or to worship them.


as long as they watch and hear/see their commercials thats all it takes to keep a show on the air.

[OmahaBlueDog]

35. That makes sense - out of power conservatives turn to FAUX for solace and fellowship

[me b zola]

68. Sadly...

...I feel like :puke:

[Joanne98]

130. That's because businesses play FOX on their TV's. It's FORCED viewing.

[me b zola]

64. I have never heard of this poster

Maybe someone else has... :shrug:

[Dennis Donovan]

4. 1) 4Q08 was during the election...

2) She's too smart for America.

I still watch her EVERY NIGHT without fail...

[Rhiannon12866]

115. So do I... Got in the habit. And I feel like I'm missing the most important insights of the day

if I miss Rachel. If I do miss her, due to obligations or movies about vampires x(, I catch the repeat (like now). It's not the same, with nobody to discuss it with, but my dog sits with me, for the company. :-) I loved "Stand By Me," in Farsi. Nice touch. :thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I've stopped watching.

And I'm the only viewer that I care about.

[ThomWV]

14. Any particular reason or it just sort of work out that way?

As it is light later in the evening we find ourselves outside later and eating later so that means some missed Rachael, but its not because we have tired of her or anything like that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Any particular reason?

Just her being a stupid sack of shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. You don't beat around the bush, do you?

:rofl:

[oasis]

45. "stupid sack of shit"

:eyes:

[Lex]

67. If you think she's stupid

there is no doubt that she's quite smart.

[Dragonfli]

70. I take it you are a FOX viewer then (that's what the knuckle draggers say about her)

Not to imply YOU are a knuckle dragger, just that all the RW idiots I work with think poorly of her as well,

Oh shit, that didn't come out right, I'll try again, not to imply that YOU are a RW idiot or anything...

Oh I give up, you speak the same as they do whatever it means.
:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. Actually, no, I don't care for vapid, dipshit cable news talking heads.

That's why I don't like Rachel Maddow.

Don't even get me started on her viewers.

[FLAprogressive]

82. I'm sorry that facts cause you to react this way.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

29. I stopped watching... once she quit treating Hillary like shit and started treating Barack like shit

that's better.


:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Primaries are over.

Time to get over it.

[depakid]

6. Yeah, right

You go on posting bogus graphs- I'll keep on laughing at them.

[walkaway]

7. The fourth quarter '08 was the election and the first quarter 09....

was the daily free fall of the stock market. Things change.

[davidwparker]

9. I only watch Keith and Rachel ... even the rebroadcasts.

[lunatica]

11. That's too bad. I think she's actually making her show better through experience

She's the only one talking continuously about the LGBT issues for example. No one else can be bothered. She has Republicans on and interviews them very well. She's very thorough in the questions she asks and direct and asks good questions and she allows them to explain. She does more than just the surface stuff on many issues and stories, and she points out the WTF moments a lot. She questions traditional acceptance of the crap that the GOP says.

I didn't expect her format to stay the same. I expected some experimentation and she's done very well in that regard. Plus her show is really quite unique in its own way. I think people should think about giving her another chance if they've stopped watching her.

[fadedrose]

50. I agree - her shows are better than ever, and

she sure knows how to do an interview. I get more out of her guests than anybody else's on TV....

I just plain love Rachel.

[tishaLA]

12. Recently her ratings have rebounded somewhat

But not to pre-election levels. That's not really surprising; Rachel doesn't sensationalize the news, but when news is sensational, like during the Iran protests, her ratings rise substantially. She almost always beats everything on cable news at the time except Hannity, and I'm sure her bosses at MSNBC would take her ratings over Dan Abrams' any day.

[monmouth]

Maybe it's her time slot. I'd love to see her on earlier...n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I have a theory.

I'm a very liberal Democrat, yet I don't watch KO or Rachel very often - even though I respect and admire both of them greatly. I know they sing for the choir and I am the choir, but in a way, I find that very boring. It was more interesting when we were the minority and opposition party or fighting Bush.

In a nutshell, I know how I feel about things, and I have a pretty good handle on how they feel about things, so I don't find it necessary to watch them, even though they convey my view for the most part.

On the other hand, I am loving Big Eddie, but that may be due to his newness. He is far surpassing my first expectations. I almost think KO and Rachel could rotate an hour and a slightly more limited exposure for each might help their ratings. Not sure

[Raine]

23. That's the way I feel too

Ed is the show I never miss, I can take KO/Rachel or leave em.

[Andy823]

171. At first

I didn't like Ed much, but he is getting a lot better. I always watch KO, but have slacked off Rachel the last few months.

[HughMoran]

41. I never miss Olbermann

I took some time off after the election, but now I'm back to "must watch"

[Johonny]

103. I find Olberman a pretty harsh critic of Obama

I find it odd people that don't watch him because he's just preaching to the choir. He seems more than able to come down hard on the current administration. If he just reread democratic talking points I would never watch the show.

[Echo In Light]

152. When I do bother w/M$M at all, I go w/K.O.

[HughMoran]

170. People will sometimes pass judgement based on a single show

...or how he was feeling during a particular week.

Their loss, not mine.

[aaaaaa5a]

104. Believe it or not more Democrats watch CNN than MSNBC

Of MSNBC, CNN, and FOX.... MSNBC has (percentage wise) the best balance of Reps and Dems.

[Ex Lurker]

107. if you watch KO you don't need to watch RM and vice versa

most of the time they cover the same ground.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Who are her competitors? n/t

[Politicalboi]

28. Insanity Hannity LOL!

And the old geezer Larry King on CNN. Or reruns of The Simpson's here in Ca. LOL!

[ColbertWatcher]

36. So, who's numbers are up? King's? Hannity's? n/t

[snappyturtle]

17. Sorry to hear this. nt

[pkdu]

20. www.tvbythenumbers.com.. really?.... with unsourced data? n/t

[malaise]

21. I'd like to know why?

Come on Rachel.

[MarjorieG]

24. Rachel and KO still up there, comparatively. As much as bash Obama on torture non-stop for a while,

her deconstructions of GOP talking points, or even sloppy media (like Iran statements not changing, etc), she is thoughtful and well-prepared with guests. Keith more high-octane.

I'm back to Rachel because of her preparation, maybe more had the same recent discomfort, but again her numbers like Keith.

[Adir Pykhtin]

25. T'he stat is useless if we don't see trends for other shows

How much have other shows in MSNBC and other channels decreased in the same period?
Without that data we can't know for sure whether Maddow's ratings decrease from 2008 to 2009 is an anomaly or the norm.

[Boomerang Diddle]

30. She's turned a lot of people off with her snotty attitude.

Hell, we won! She should be at least a little bit happy, but she can't seem to find the good in anything Obama or Democrats do. Her appeal is to those with a chip on their shoulder. Maybe one day she'll come around and realize not everyone on the left is angry 24/7. Some of us actually appreciate life and don't feel a need to complain day and night.

[regnaD kciN]

31. She "talked them down"...

...and not in a good way.

[ThomWV]

39. Your attitude surprises me and to be honest I find it a bit appalling

Because all you are really saying is Obama right or wrong.

[Boomerang Diddle]

40. Thanks for telling me what I was "really saying."

I'm glad you have better insight into my mind than I do. How proud you must be to possess such a gift!

PS: Rachel Maddow is just a TV personality, and I, as a viewer, have the right to express my opinion of her TV show.

Oh, and isn't what YOU are saying is Rachel right or wrong?

[Peregrine Took]

42. Hey! I like Obama - I'm just not ready to deify him.

Truth is I want him to, very much, quell the Bush-lite tendencies he seems to have.

He seems much more interested in pleasing his Fox critics than in pleasing the people on the left end of the Democratic party. After all, we voted for him - they didn't

[Boomerang Diddle]

43. Actually, Obama works for ALL of the American people.

Even those who didn't vote for him.

You see, that's how Bush governed. Bush ignored the wishes of those who didn't vote for him. I'm thankful we now have a president who doesn't govern that way. I'm glad we have a president who is trying to do what he thinks is best for the country and not just trying to kowtow to his base.

[girl gone mad]

60. Bush ignored the wishes of his critics on the left.

Just like Obama is doing.

[Boomerang Diddle]

78. I think this alone proves you wrong:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8502281&mesg_id=8502281

[Dragonfli]

112. All that proved to me was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=330931&mesg_id=330960

He was approached by a very brave serviceman at the reception that is losing his career and his pension due to simple bigotry, he only had words to offer him by way of empathy when he could have used his authority to help him instead.

Words are not the same as deeds you know.

Point to deeds and not words if you wish to prove something, or make promises in one hand while shitting in the other - then observe which hand fills first if the concept of "words without action" is too difficult for you to understand and you need a demonstration.

:-)

[paulsby]

114. bush ignored all his critics

left and right.

for better or worse (obviously worse in the case of bush), that's how he governed.

compare to clinton, who listened to pretty much all his critics regardless of left/right, and sometimes over triangulated.

bush had massive criticism from the right (immigration/amnesty issues are one good example), and i see zero evidence he listened to rightwing critics either.

we are talking a guy who made a point of surrounding himself with yes men, like no president i am aware of.

[DireStrike]

147. Pleasing people with bad ideas hammered into their heads isn't really serving them

Sometimes you need to force children to take their medicine.

[Raine]

49. Agree

lately she is really rubbing me the wrong way. x(

[whathehell]

123. I agree,..I don't see her as having a "snotty attitude", necessarily

but she does seem to have lost some of her sparkle and wit.

[fascisthunter]

144. I doubt it... maybe right wingers

but they don't count

[ecstatic]

32. Take the hint, Rache

Snarky attacks on the President will only get you so far. RWers certainly aren't going to tune in to your show.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. I love her show

consistently smart.

Maybe that's the problem with the ratings. People don't always react well to smart.

[immoderate]

88. I'm with you.

Rachel is great! She does it every night. When she leans on Obama it's because he is wrong and somebody has to tell him.

--imm

[slay]

109. Me too!

More so than Keith often. She's very smart, and likable. I don't guess the Obama cheerleading squad here at DU like her much since she values actual action by Obama rather than the blind worship you see around here so often these days.

[JerseygirlCT]

129. Well, it's funny

because often I'd guess I'd be grouped with the cheerleading squad. I think overall he's doing a great job, and that we do have to give the guy some time - he's juggling incredible amounts of mess (thank you George) and just thinking about it all is sort of overwhelming.

But I do think that the way she points out problems is constructive, not destructive. It feels to me like the way a good friend can tell you when you're about to make a mistake or have already done so.

[mod mom]

38. I LOVE her show, but it is summer.

[otohara]

105. Yep - Numbers Always Take A Dip

especially with the youngsters.

I personally am burned out with the whole lot - so I DVR KO & ES and speed through stuff I'm not that interested in.

[Raine]

46. Rachel is too one issue

at least KO has goes after the reTHUGs Rachel just dumps on Obama. I would like to see some time devoted to the environment and food safety etc.

[Uzybone]

47. not surprising; her act wears thin after a while.

She is smart and a great analyst, but as a host I find her a bore.

[Orsino]

127. It may have been inevitable...

...that a big, corporate network would soon dilute her little, anticorporate message.

[Uzybone]

156. Yep. Seriously, she works for GEMSNBC, as do KO and Ed

they say what they are allowed to say. Its funny that we all say "do not trust the MSM" yet Rachel has worshipers on this site that treat her entertainment show as gospel. All those shows are entertainment shows. I have more faith in The Daily Show than in any other show on cable "news".

[aaaaaa5a]

48. This may sound crazy... but she attacks Obama way to much for me!

I've had it with her. I view this situation as more of a political war. FOX news attacks Obama every night. MSNBC is suppose to even the cable news playing field. But if Maddow is going to attack Obama too, then what's the point!





I know she is more liberal than the administration, but you have to be realistic. There are only 2 parties. You have to choose which party "most likely" backs your ideals and go from there. Rachel Maddow doesn't seem to understand that.





Sean Hannity is far more conservative than Bush was. But he didn't attack Bush from the right nearly as often as Maddow attacks Obama from the left.




Her declining ratings don't bother me one bit. There are nights where I don't know if she is really helping the cause.

[blue_onyx]

51. MSNBS is a news channel...you know that, right?

"There are only 2 parties. You have to choose which party "most likely" backs your ideals and go from there. Rachel Maddow doesn't seem to understand that."

Her job isn't to pick a party and support it unconditionally.


"Sean Hannity is far more conservative than Bush was. But he didn't attack Bush from the right nearly as often as Maddow attacks Obama from the left."

I was hoping that liberals would hold themselves to a higher standard rather than becoming exactly what we've hated during the 8 years of the Bush administration.

[aaaaaa5a]

53. That philosophy is the reason why for most of my life, my side has lost. NT

[slay]

111. With your "philosophy" - you deserve to lose

That black/white, good/bad, Dem/Repub mentality's got a hold of ya something fierce don't it? So no other choice than what the Dems or Repubs present to you (hint - it's not that much of a choice since they are both beholden to their corporate masters). If the Democratic party has to compromise it's core values in order to "win", then we have not "won" anything, we are not much of a party at all - and we deserve to lose. And maybe that's what it will take. Maybe it will take another 4, 8, 12 years of Republican domination before people wake up and demand progressive results when they vote for a Democrat. You may now return to your regularly scheduled corporate Obama worship already in progress....

[Boomerang Diddle]

54. Ms Maddow is NOT a reporter, she's a TV commentator.

And she is not the moral conscience of the left. She's a TV host. She gives her opinion, which is fine, it's her job. Unfortunately for her, her opinion and the way she presents it is not in line with how most liberals, and indeed, Americans, think.

She appeals to the fringe of the left the same way Hannity appeals to the fringe of the right, but the problem for her is the right has a lot larger fringe than the left does, which is a good thing. Most people on the left are very happy with this administration and the direction the country is going in.

[blue_onyx]

57. Really?

"her opinion and the way she presents it is not in line with how most liberals, and indeed, Americans, think."

Care to share how her opinions are out of line with most liberals?

[aaaaaa5a]

59. Polls show the overwhelming majority of Democrats support Obama.

If her show represented the left, that support would be reflected in her commentary.

[girl gone mad]

69. Polls show overwhelming support for the public option..

and an end to DADT.

I'd say that means more people are on her side.

Obama's ratings are on the decline, too. Let's not get too carried away over a loss in viewership after the major election season and in the midst of spring/summer. Television viewership is down across the board among younger people, who constitute Rachel's prime target audience.

[blue_onyx]

72. Just because the majority of Democrats

support Obama overall doesn't mean they support everything Obama does. Rachel criticizes Obama on some things, which some liberals just can't stand.

You still didn't answer which of Rachel's opinions are so out of line with most liberals. I bet the things Rachel is critical about, such as Obama's lack of support for gay rights, are issues most liberals would actually agree with Rachel on.

[aaaaaa5a]

84. Sorry for not answering the question more direclty.... I actually hate when that's done to me! LOL

How about this issue.


Rachel Maddow went on for days about how the Obama administration should release the torture photos. The majority of Democrats and Republicans were against releasing the photos. According to CNN polling, 6 out of 10 liberals were against the release of the images too. But that didn't stop Rachel from happily bashing the President for nearly an entire week.


Here's the link to the CNN polling showing the overwhelming support for the President and his decision. But that didn't stop Rachel!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/19/poll-democrats-and-repulicans-agree-on-photos/



She clearly did not represent the majority "liberal or democratic position" on this issue.

[JonLP24]

140. She was right from a legal standpoint

She had a constitutional law professor on to explain it, I forgot his name but he is also a regular guest on KO. I forgot much of what he said but paraphrasing as far as transparency and the court made the ruling he had no legal standing.

Also I'm glad she doesn't report based on the whims of polling also Feingold agrees with her and as you remember he voted against the Patriot Act, one of the few Dems to do so.

[blue_onyx]

158. She is correct on that issue

6 out of 10 may disagree with her but there's likely a small percentage that agreed with Obama's position because it is Obama's position. If Bush was the person holding back the pictures, most liberals would be going crazy.

[aaaaaa5a]

63. Good point!

The "fringe left" is only a small slice of the Democratic Party. The "fringe right" at this point **IS** the Republican party. Hannity has a lot more viewers to appeal to than Maddow does.

[deaniac21]

164. It would not be the "fringe"then....

[stevenleser]

95. Not really.

MSNBC isnt a strictly news channel anymore than CNN is or Fox News is. Some programs are News shows, true, but many are not and are not presented as such. Maddow and Olberman are not News types, they are Opinion/Editorial personalities and dont try to pretend to be anything else. We want them to express their opinions on things, that is the whole point.

[Uzybone]

157. O'Riellys of the left

being of the left they are less prone to lie, dissemble, insult and deceive, but they are (as you rightly called them) Op-ed TV personalities and nothing more.

[JamesA1102]

167. It's also a business

And it is not good business to drive away your audience.

[scheming daemons]

52. That's because it has become the "Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Turley Show"

...and Turley is an ass hat.

[FLAprogressive]

71. delete

[bertman]

55. Rachel and Ed and Keith: the teevee trilogy of progressive America

[960]

56. She panders to the left and then bashes Hillary and Obama

That's a mix for lower viewership.

[TomCADem]

102. Agree, She Has Kind of Marginalized Herself

Since a large segment of the population buys into the notion that President Obama is a leftist, she just does not sound too credible raising leftist critques. Who is her audience supposed to be?

[Colobo]

58. She's too much of a Debbie Downer for me.

[FLAprogressive]

79. Do facts make you too upset?

[Thrill]

61. Stop the weird sarcasm. And the audience will come back.

[Fla Dem]

138. Agree, I think her snarkiness and sarcasm is what makes me

uncomfortable watching her. I get the feeling she is trying to be humorous (ala KO), but she doesn't have the personality to pull it off. It comes off as childish.

[knitter4democracy]

62. I lost MSNBC when Comcast changed my cable package.

I can't afford to upgrade, so now I only see clips here from Keith and Rachel.

[aaaaaa5a]

66. FOX is still available in many more households than MSNBC.

This may sound strange to members on DU, but there are still a lot of people that know nothing about MSNBC.

[knitter4democracy]

151. They even took Fox away this time.

I basically just have whatever would come over the antenna if I had one.

Thing is, to get MSNBC would mean an upgrade of two levels, for Fox, just one. You're right--Fox is on a lower level cable package and probably is for most people.

[ginnyinWI]

85. that's what I was thinking--

MSNBC is only on upper tiers in many markets. Maybe with people losing jobs or worried and deciding to cut back they are downgrading their cable or satellite programming. That would make numbers go down, for sure.

[Stardust]

93. You know you can download their podcasts from MSNBC.com, right?

[knitter4democracy]

153. No, I didn't!

Thanks for this! Now I can get my Rachel fix!

[A HERETIC I AM]

65. By the time 9 o'clock rolls around, I've had quite enough news.

I'm ready for a distraction by then. I'm just not interested in another news/talk show at nine in the evening.

BTW, I'm on the high end of that demographic (50 yrs old)

[FLAprogressive]

73. Your weekly "Throw Rachel Maddow Under the Bus" thread is brought to you by the GD:P All Stars

"Question Obama, and we'll attack you!"

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Whose data? That is one problem

Also, compared to what? It was election quarter peak. What are others in the time slot and other similar shows doing? Up? Down? By how much?
Meaningless.

[me b zola]

75. Where have you been posting?

I cannot find any postings of you in GD or GDP

You are you?

on edit: i found you in GDP....briefly

[jmondine]

76. Do these numbers include folks who stream the shows from the net?

That's how I watch Rachel. What, don't I count?

[Bluenorthwest]

77. This is made up crap presented without the benefit

of any context or source. It is nonsense on the half shell. It is also posted with bad intent if you ask me. And the same old crowd shouts yes, yes to this utterly meaningless bit of non information. Fodder for fools.

[stevenleser]

96. Its not made up. Its actually good news.

Viewership of virtually every middle of the road or Democratic/Progressive show is down. Why? Because there is no more election and we won. People who are out of power and unhappy with those in power are much more politically active traditionally and independants and Democrats are happy.

I cannot speak to the intent, but this is accurate data.

[exman]

97. Me too!

:hi: I would bet Rachel's numbers would be drastically improved if Internet viewers were to be counted. I believe her audience is largely intelligent people and we know how few of them are around...Much of what she has to say would go right over the head of a television educated average American. She is also competing with Keith Olbermann for material....

[MadBadger]

80. She debuted in the middle of an election...of course her numbers are down

[Ilsa]

81. Would summertime have anything to do with this?

We don't watch as much tv in the summer. And yes, we've taken a break on politics since the election. We haven't had our noses to the grindstone as much lately.

[derby378]

83. VERY good point

I've seen interest in all things political wane over the past couple of months. I think a lot of us just want a break from it all after eight years of suffering the likes of Bush. We want to run barefoot through the park and soak up some sunlight.

Sounds rather attractive, actually. There's still plenty of work to do, though, but maybe I too can peel myself away for a dandelion break (Bloom County reference for my fellow old-timers).

[ginnyinWI]

90. people want a break because they're not terrified anymore.

It's true for me, anyway. Bush is gone and the country is in capable, sane hands and we're all relieved. And want to do other things, now that we don't need to stay glued to the news for fear of that he'd do next to screw up our country.

I've put in a great vegetable garden this year, and have some other home projects in the works, and then there are the kids and grandkids--one on the way next month. Life is good.

News? Yes of course I still watch the news. I like PBS Newshour to get the hard news, then I like one of MSNBC's shows for politics. Lately I've drifted back to Hardball, but that could change.

[Ilsa]

143. LOL. I need to bring out my stuffed Opus. I've been spending

my Rachel time outside watering my garden before it burns up after the afternoon heat. My tomatoes are coming on strong now.

Alot of us have kids out of school and we want to make the most of this time when we aren't helping with homework or helping to get kiddos tobed on time.

[JI7]

91. and her audience is probably younger so less likely to pay attention in summer

[maglatinavi]

86. rachel

i think she is very smart and gives a very humane tinge to her program ... and i think that her criticisms of obama are justified...

[Neecy]

87. Bitching about the angry lesbian again, are we?

Doesn't she know she's supposed to keep her mouth shut and enjoy her lack of civil rights, otherwise a small group on a so-called 'progressive' message board will smear her endlessly?

[TokenQueer]

92. +1 n/t

[FLAprogressive]

100. She's also supposed to keep quiet on a plethora of other things!

After all, independent thought will only bring down the Democratic Party!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

119. Rachel is the voice of sanity.

We are lucky to have her. I don't understand it either.

[KG]

122. +Infinity

[Dawgs]

125. Not liking Rachel has nothing to do with her being a lesbian.

Crying bigotry when no proof of any exists should be beneath us.

[Neecy]

141. it has everything to do with it

Look at how the gay community on DU has been trashed by the fanboys because we dare to hold Obama to his campaign promises.

Rachel holds Obama accountable, and highlights the service members who are being thrown out of the military because our 'fierce advocate' cares more about his political future than he does about the real lives that are being ruined, and suddenly the faux progressives here are throwing her to the wolves.

I've accepted the fact that there are members here who just want us to go back into the DU closet and stop making waves. Too damn bad.

[Dawgs]

142. So, you still have no proof.

BTW, I stopped liking Rachel when she was constantly telling us that Obama was going to lose the election because of Pennsylvania. She lost my respect then.

I agree with her regarding Obama's position on DADT. That doesn't mean I have to like her show.

[JonLP24]

150. I honestly don't know what you are talking about

Believe me if I saw what you described I would not try to refute you and it may be possible I missed that paticular night but constantly I'm sure I wouldn't of missed it due to the fact I watch her every night. I don't have selective memory either, in fact I remember how she was reporting McCain was in trouble. Such as Obama gaining on Bush states and McCain losing them as well. I even remember a football analogy that McCain was only as far as the 50 in reference to 50/50 states of the 2004 election such as Ohio and wasn't advancing any further meanwhile Obama was doing well in field goal range such as polling well in Indiana and Virginia based on polling and she referenced how field position in this sense means Obama is far more likely to score or win then afterwards she had Governor Rendell on and he said it was a great analogy and that Pennsylvanian's love football. He also reminded her that sometimes they connect on those hail marys.

I certainly would've remembered 'Obama is going to lose because of Pennsylvania' every night as I remember quite a bit about her show. The torture timeline was the most informative piece in the MSM about the subject that I've seen anywhere.

[NNN0LHI]

89. I admit she lost me a few months ago

When she got all dramatic about putting a phone call into Pelosi's office about what she knew about torture under the Bush administration.

And the sources she was using to question Pelosi were scummy Republicans like Cheney.

I didn't remember her publicly talking about putting calls into any Rethugs offices before on live TV.

I thought to myself "What the fuck is going on here?"

Stopped watching her.

Don

[travelingtypist]

99. As Sally Bowles said of Lya de Putti --

"She makes too many faces."

[ThoughtCriminal]

106. Duh, it's not an election year

How does this compare to similar shows?

[slay]

108. Not surprising - also is summer - also she's on in primetime at 9pm - also progressives do not need

to have their world view CONSTANTLY re-inforced the way conservatives do (between listening to Rush, watching Hannity, O'Riley, etc how do they have time for anything else?).

[snot]

110. I am a supporter of RIGHTS, not of men;

just as we were intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

When it comes to the vote, I vote for the least of evils.

But meanwhile, I will NOT shut up my criticisms of violations of fundamental human rights, and I do NOT want Rachel to shut up about them, either.

Do you think, if W. had ever crossed his corp. masters, that they or the media they own would have held their criticism for one minute? No.

It is ALL of our duty to OBJECT to every single abrogration of any of our rights -- or we'll lose them. I don't give a rat's *ss WHO's doing the abrogating.

[Dragonfli]

113. John Adams Agreed (as I am sure you know, I noticed you quoted his 'nation of laws not men' :-)

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.

[snot]

168. exactly! thanks.

[Norrin Radd]

116. Love her show.

[vssmith]

117. I dont think she has a good time slot

[tomm2thumbs]

118. personally that screen-interview set up is weak and needs to be retired

other than that, I'd say she is just in need of a little bit of variety - comedy is great, but hard hitting reporting will get her audience and respect.

[B Calm]

120. Time of the year and time slot. . .

[a kennedy]

121. MSNBC topped CNN in weekday primetime viewers (both total viewers and A25-54) for the first quarter

MSNBC averaged 946,000 total viewers in weekday primetime compared to CNN's 939,000. In the Adults 25-54 demographic, MSNBC averaged 289,000 viewers compared to CNN's 261,000.

However, when weekends are factored in, CNN tops MSNBC, which has notoriously scant live weekend news coverage. In Monday-Sunday primetime, CNN averaged 863,000 total viewers to MSNBC's 797,000.

Both networks combined had fewer primetime viewers than Fox News, which is on pace for its best year ever.

here: <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/30/msnbc-beats-cnn-in-total_n_223461.html>

[Waiting For Everyman]

126. When she's not doing the "jaunty sarcasm" thing, which is 80% of the time,

she's doing the "earnest bloodhound eyes". Sometimes would be fine, but all the time gets on my nerves. On some topics, the jauntiness is very inappropriate. I like her reporting, and I think she's very intelligent, but her continual use of those mannerisms seems very fake after a while.

[Atman]

128. I'm fatigued by the time she comes on.

Face it, after a couple of hours of Ed and KO, Rachel is just another re-hash, nothing really unique or compelling enough to make me stay and watch. I don't dislike her or her show, I just can't/don't want to devote an entire evening to hearing the same "Republicans suck!" stories repeated over and over by a revolving palette of talking heads.

.

[DireStrike]

146. I know an easy way to avoid that fatigue

Start watching at Rachel. :evilgrin:

Ed is something to watch in his own right, and you are correct, he is as far as I'm concerned THE main spewer of "Republicans suck!" stories. Olbermann... yeah, he has that oldspeak, "look at me I'm the son of Edward R. Murrow" sort of persona going, but his show is mostly fluff. If you listen to a lot of the posters in this thread, Rachel does not by default go for the feel good, "republicans suck" stories. Of course she has to get the low hanging fruit like Sanford, but meh.

If you had choose from the three hours of programming, Rachel should be top priority IMO, followed by Ed and then Olbermann.

[Atman]

154. I pretty much agree with your viewing priorities.

Part of what is appealing about Rachel's show is that she isn't just a cheerleader. We had eight years of the media telling us everything was okay, that George knew what he was doing and was a good, decent man, when everyone knew it simply wasn't true. If I agreed with every story Rachel did I'd have to start wondering why and start looking for something else to watch, because like you said, KO is fun to watch, but it's pretty much all fluff. I like Ed because he gets pissed off and actually brings some passion to this crap.

.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

131. Last year was an election year. It's the summer of a non election year.

I love Rachel. She's my absolute favorite pundit.

[Joanne98]

132. I love her show but she needs to tweak the format. That pop culture thing at the end. stoopid.

[TexasObserver]

134. She forgot who her audience was.

I quit watching her months ago.

[skip fox]

135. Rachel's coverage of Iranian protests was the best this side of pubic broadcasting.

:)

[HamdenRice]

136. Looks like her audience complied with her request and "talked her down" ...

down in the ratings, that is!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I stopped watching Rachel ("Bush, I mean Obama") Maddow weeks ago. I can watch Fox for that shit.

[JonLP24]

137. So sad, she is the only one I watch on a regular basis

I see quite a number of posts bashing her and it makes me wonder why. She is great source of truth that is rare, she did a great report on the torture timeline. When she has criticisms of Obama trust me they are legitimate criticisms. She isn't running a report on Obama ordering Dijon mustard or something like that and goes after the RW quite often.

Continuing prolonged detentions, inaction as far as LGBT issues, etc are issues that I see raise issues on him and we all should. If I want to know what my government is doing right or left I tune in to Rachel Maddow. Without Maddow all I have is Jon Stewart or Olbermann to keep me informed about things that I miss from online. Aside from the jokes Jon Stewart is very truthful in how he reports the news.

[DireStrike]

145. This is very sad. Rachel is one of the most thoughtful and consistent journalists around

And I'm not afraid to use the term journalist even though she's "just" a talking head. Because you KNOW she spends all day working on the show - by which I mean researching the issues, not dealing with production values.

It's very sad that the sports fan partisans in our own party don't appreciate legitimate criticism of our side. It doesn't matter who's in charge or what color a newscaster is supposed to be wearing. She is a reporter, not a cheerleader, and I want to hear critical thinking about the issues covered. And frankly, so should you.

And when she covers an issue, boy does she COVER it. She sticks with it and gets out tons of information.

I watch whenever I'm in front of the TV at 9 or 11, which admittedly isn't every day. But it's usually the best thing on TV at that hour.

[Christa]

148. She comes on after some big guns

There is nothing new to say anymore. Anderson Cooper has the same problem - as much as I love and respect both of them, I often switch channels :(

[karynnj]

149. that's not that surprising - coverage of a partisan race with

measures of who is winning and snippets of what everyone was saying is a more natural fit for her style than the coverage of administrative or Congressional actions. Not to mention, in the fall, over half the country were always on the same side as she was.

The dilemma now is that either you cover issues, which are more nuanced than most want to hear or you concentrate only on the controversies. Either way, not as easy as the game of politics - especially when your team is winning easily.

[kjackson227]

155. Sorry to read this about her show...

Rachel Maddow is probably THE SMARTEST woman/person on the airwaves (along with Thom Hartmann, and Keith Olbermann), so it would be a great loss to lose her, but she does have a tendency to bash the president every now and then, and this most definitely doesn't help. Not to mention the fact that she's in competition with some CNN shows. Also, I think Faux News has the numbers because they're the only neo-con faux news station. MSNBC has to share viewers with CNN.

[realitythink]

159. People are fleeing television in droves!!

All television is down, across the board. Where does Rachel stand in the iTunes ratings? That is more important because it's the future of journalism. TV is infotainment and that is not Rachel.

By the way she stands at #34 out of the 100 top podcasts on iTunes, which ain't too shabby. I see NO fox news programs on there.

[glinda]

160. Dump the fluff with Anna Marie "Cox". She needs to go in order for her to seem more serious.

And she needs to dump the "cocktail hour". Her fondness for mentioning the male genitalia is a turn off. I think people do not think it funny nor witty. I like her when she goes in depth and also her humor but she needs to clean house and maybe do panels, more in depth discussion or better yet, take the top three MYTHS of the day and DEBUNK them.

[GeorgeGist]

162. Sad news to me ...

because, in my opinion, she's gotten better since the election.

[Robbins]

163. My take

her being so critical of Obama Is hurting her with some.

Countdown Is the most Mustsee cable news.Keith will critize Obama but hasn't forgetten to be critical of Republicans,and will be
all critical of Obama.

At first I was uneasy about Ed for having republican asses as part of his panels but I see know he has them on to help them do themselves In.Tancerdo does a lot of damage to Republicans on Ed every time he opens his mouth.

I don't know why Democrats would watch CNN over MSNBC.

[deaniac21]

165. I think that a lot of what is happening to her is caused by

bigotry against gay people.

[Arugula Latte]

169. Honestly, the "Debbie Downer" act got old for me quickly.