Election Night 2010 Ratings: Fox News Dominates Cable News With 7 Million Viewers

[Grim17]

These numbers speak for themselves.

Election Night 2010 Ratings: Fox News Dominates Cable News With 7 Million Viewers
Huffington Post
Danny Shea
11-3-10, 02:08 PM

The 2010 midterm elections were a great night for Fox News ratings.

The network averaged 6.975 million total viewers in primetime Tuesday night to easily dominate the cable news ratings race.

CNN placed second with 2.424 million total viewers, while MSNBC came in third with 1.957 million total viewers. All numbers are according to Nielsen Media Research.

Election Night 2010 Ratings: Fox News Dominates Cable News With 7 Million Viewers

 

[pragmatic]

These numbers speak for themselves.



Election Night 2010 Ratings: Fox News Dominates Cable News With 7 Million Viewers

Thought Brett Baer and Megyn Kelly did a nice professional job. Kept things focused and interesting. Good guests (certainly right leaning for the most part) and decent interviews.

Which leads me to the other side of the street. Am really not usually an MSNBC basher. Leans Left which is fine and can often/usually be interesting. With that said....... the behavior and snarky, attack attitudes of Oberman, Mathews, Maddow (and some other dick) in their election night coverage should have been an embarrassment to the network and even to their fans. It was a bit of a new low for MSNBC in my opinion. :roll:


.

 

[Diogenes]

That figures. The elections themselves proved that the electorate is interested, and they want facts -- not spin.

 

[Zyphlin]

First, its not surprising. Anyone with honesty intentions could tell the Republicans were going to be the big winners in this election cycle which would spur more conservative individuals to watch the results than liberals.

Second, Fox really did an excellent job. Their anchors were not talking heads but more of the typical journalist. They both did a good job of asking legitimate questions to the more partisan guests they had on, such as pressing Huckabee and Palin on where they think common ground can be found. They did have special segments with their typical talking heads but they were relatively short and outside of O'Riely going after the one guy in Florida they weren't THAT slanted or obviously bashing of segments.

Third, the setup was very aesthically pleasing. Normally I find myself spending more time on CNN than Fox on election night as I enjoyed their program and look, but this year the more they push all these new gadgets and shiny bells and whistles the more obnoxious it is to watch and I found myself watching fox's simple but efficient layout more often.

Fourth, MSNBC was a joke and it was obvious they would be as soon as they announced their talking heads as being the anchors. Can you imagine the outcry if Fox had Hannity, O'Reily, Beck, and Coulter being their election night hosts? They were rude, condenscending, and blatantly biased the entire time. It was really, really striking looking at some of the things going on over there and comparing it ot the other two. Especially Fox when its so often getting tons more flack for this kind of thing than MSNBC gets.

 

[haymarket]

First, I did not watch it on election night. What I know of it is what I read. It seems that FOX figured out that the GOP was going to win big and they decided that they would appear more journalistic than usual if the adopted that old bit of advice they give courtroom lawyers: if the law is on your side then argue the law..... if the facts are on your side then argue the facts .... if neither of those are on your side then find some emotional issue that may resonate with some of the jury .... and so on. Since the facts were going to be on the side of FOX, they could play it safe and take the so-called journalistic high road.

One other observation - you can see just how fractured our society has become when 7 million people out of a nation of over 300 million amounts to a big deal. When the country was half that size a viewing audience of 7 million people would have got your show cancelled. But in the fractured universe of 200 channels, 7 million I guess means something to somebody. The flip side is that 300 million did not watch FOX.

 

[Josie]

First, I did not watch it on election night. What I know of it is what I read. It seems that FOX figured out that the GOP was going to win big and they decided that they would appear more journalistic than usual if the adopted that old bit of advice they give courtroom lawyers: if the law is on your side then argue the law..... if the facts are on your side then argue the facts .... if neither of those are on your side then find some emotional issue that may resonate with some of the jury .... and so on. Since the facts were going to be on the side of FOX, they could play it safe and take the so-called journalistic high road.

Please provide a clip from an election night when they didn't use journalists from both sides of the aisle for commentary.

MSNBC had 5 PUNDITS commenting with ZERO people from the right side on their panel. No wonder their ratings SUCK.

 

[haymarket]

from Mellie

Please provide a clip from an election night when they didn't use journalists from both sides of the aisle for commentary.

uh - you would ask me to do this because...... because ... because ... of just what exactly? What in my post was critical of FOX coverage? I said that they opted to go for a more jouralistic approach because they knew the news would be of their liking. And this is wrong because .... because .... because?

 

[Harshaw]

from Mellie



uh - you would ask me to do this because...... because ... because ... of just what exactly? What in my post was critical of FOX coverage? I said that they opted to go for a more jouralistic approach because they knew the news would be of their liking. And this is wrong because .... because .... because?

Because . . . because . . . because . . .

. . . it was clear two years ago and four years ago that Republicans were going to have bad nights, and they did exactly the same thing as they did this past Tuesday night.

 

[ecofarm]

They're off to see the wizard?

 

[Josie]

they're off to see the wizard?

lol!......

 

[Josie]

uh - you would ask me to do this because...... because ... because ... of just what exactly? What in my post was critical of FOX coverage? I said that they opted to go for a more jouralistic approach because they knew the news would be of their liking. And this is wrong because .... because .... because?

Because you said.............

It seems that FOX figured out that the GOP was going to win big and they decided that they would appear more journalistic than usual if the adopted that old bit of advice they give courtroom lawyers: if the law is on your side then argue the law..... if the facts are on your side then argue the facts .... if neither of those are on your side then find some emotional issue that may resonate with some of the jury .... and so on. Since the facts were going to be on the side of FOX, they could play it safe and take the so-called journalistic high road.

So show me an election night where Fox figured out that the GOP wasn't going to win big and they decided to drop the journalistic view. You cannot because they're the same for every single election no matter which party is "winning". They always have Bret Baer (in the past it was Brit Hume) and a couple right-wing commentators and a couple left-wing commentators.

So....your point makes no sense. They didn't "decide to appear more journalistic" because the GOP was going to win big. That's just your prejudiced perception.

 

[Harshaw]

Perception based on not having actually watched it, either.

 

[Kandahar]

I rarely watch TV news, but I did have CNN on during the election results. They did a decent job keeping it fair, and giving voice to both respectable liberals and conservatives (as well as nonpartisan analysts). But I agree with Zyphlin that it's incredibly annoying the way they constantly trot out their high-tech toys, for no discernible purpose other than to show them off.

I occasionally flipped to MSNBC, but the panel was so obnoxious that it was difficult to watch for more than a couple minutes at a time. I was honestly taken aback by the blatant bias in their coverage. I mean, obviously they lean to the left and normally that's OK with me, but it was really over the top.

I didn't really watch FOX, so I can't comment on how they did.

But honestly, the most insightful commentary didn't come from any of the cable news channels. It came from FiveThirtyEight, RealClearPolitics, and Twitter.

 

[Zyphlin]

I'm ready for CNN's election 2012 coverage, being a Presidential Election, to use a hologram image of a person walking around using augmentive reality software on the new iPad3 is projected onto the space station that is viewable by the public in 3d to explain to you how Wyandotte County in Kansas is the key to the election.

And it shall usher in the apocolypse

 

[Erod]

First, I did not watch it on election night. What I know of it is what I read. It seems that FOX figured out that the GOP was going to win big and they decided that they would appear more journalistic than usual if the adopted that old bit of advice they give courtroom lawyers: if the law is on your side then argue the law..... if the facts are on your side then argue the facts .... if neither of those are on your side then find some emotional issue that may resonate with some of the jury .... and so on. Since the facts were going to be on the side of FOX, they could play it safe and take the so-called journalistic high road.

One other observation - you can see just how fractured our society has become when 7 million people out of a nation of over 300 million amounts to a big deal. When the country was half that size a viewing audience of 7 million people would have got your show cancelled. But in the fractured universe of 200 channels, 7 million I guess means something to somebody. The flip side is that 300 million did not watch FOX.

No, Fox covered 2006 and 2008 the same way it did this year, back when it didn't go the GOP's way. Fox ALWAYS covers elections like this.

Seriously, your mind is so twisted hardcore left you can't think. Much like the link-less thread you created on Rasmussen.

 

[Erod]

I'm ready for CNN's election 2012 coverage, being a Presidential Election, to use a hologram image of a person walking around using augmentive reality software on the new iPad3 is projected onto the space station that is viewable by the public in 3d to explain to you how Wyandotte County in Kansas is the key to the election.

And it shall usher in the apocolypse

Cool, right before the Mayan calendar runs out. We'll get to see it!!

 

[Red Crow]

That figures. The elections themselves proved that the electorate is interested, and they want facts -- not spin.

Boo Ridley disagrees with you just like he disagreed with me about this exact subject.

 

[Diogenes]

Boo Ridley disagrees with you just like he disagreed with me about this exact subject.

I would be concerned if he ever did agree with me. That would be cause for some serious re-examination... :mrgreen:

 

[Red Crow]

I would be concerned if he ever did agree with me. That would be cause for some serious re-examination... :mrgreen:

I totally agree with you. I am not the least concerened either, but it can be very annoying