Donald Trump Did it Again

[Pogo]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

You're kidding right? EVERYTHING in TV is about ratings Pogo. You don't get the ratings, you don't get the big advertising dollars. A 30 second spot on The Factor will cost you hundreds of thousands more than on the Rachel Maddow show...why? Ratings.

Political debates --- and public service content in general --- isn't put on for "ratings". It's put on, if you really want to know, because Congress, through the FCC, declared decades ago that the airwaves belong to the public, and therefore broadcast licenses are awarded to entities that serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". To that end said entities will put on the Farm Market report at 4am or the round table debate on the national debt in the wee hours --- simply so they can go back to the FCC at license renewal time and say "we did X number of hours of public service programming".

Never mind that that total makes up a tiny fraction that the greater proportion of the viewership/listenership isn't even aware of it, they count as "brownie points" for the license application.

Ratings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the above; they tell a Fox News or a CBS or a KRAP-FM how much it can charge for commercial time by mapping out who's watching/listening. Those numbers are pumped up by, above all, fear, loathing and sensationalism (hence the maxim "if it bleeds it leads"). They're pumped up by disasters and terror attacks and innuendo and horrible weather and clowns like Donald Rump. They are NOT pumped up by the Farm Report, the dry roundtable of what's happening in the Chinese economy or a political debate.

In short, airing a political debate is not competing for ratings. And usually it doesn't contain any ads anyway.

This misconception of what ratings mean and what they don't mean is one I have to constantly correct every time some wag wags in here toting the latest Fox ratings as if it's some measure of "approval" of what they're doing. It isn't. Ratings measure attention --- not approval. There's a vital psychological difference.

There's stuff in the world I understand and stuff I don't, but after 35 years in broadcasting this is definitely one of the former.

Now if X number of people sat out a debate because Rump wasn't there, all that effectively tells us is that X number of people would have been more interested in watching circus than in watching issues. It tells us nothing about those issues. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of "who won". Because it isn't a "contest". Even if Rump wants to spin it that way.

 

[Pogo]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

The BASICS of ratings is to JUDGE who is being watched and listened to. Its SIDE EFFECT is used to sell time.

No, Pinkie. Selling ads is the whole reason ratings exist at all and their only purpose. They tell a potential advertiser, "we can deilver X amount of eyeballs, in these categories, for you to sell your chocolate bar". That's it. The end, full stop.

It has no function in a political debate, which is in effect a public service message. How many or how few watch that message is irrelevant; the point is that the media outlet provided it. And that means they can point to themselves and say "see? We contributed to the public discourse". And that's it.

I have no doubt Rump knows this as well as I do, as any broadcaster does. But he's counting on the unwashed to NOT know it. I just let the cat out of the bag.

Thank me later.

So the SUPER BOWL exists ONLY to sell products and NOT to tell who is number one? No wonder members think you are stupid.

In a real sense, yes it does, exactly. You have any idea how much money is tied up in setting up, hyping and disseminating the Super Bowl? You have any clue how much profit is made from it, regardless who plays or wins it?

If you think the point of a Stupor Bowl is to establish the best football team, you're extremely naïve.

 

[DarkFury]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

You're kidding right? EVERYTHING in TV is about ratings Pogo. You don't get the ratings, you don't get the big advertising dollars. A 30 second spot on The Factor will cost you hundreds of thousands more than on the Rachel Maddow show...why? Ratings.

Political debates --- and public service content in general --- isn't put on for "ratings". It's put on, if you really want to know, because Congress, through the FCC, declared decades ago that the airwaves belong to the public, and therefore broadcast licenses are awarded to entities that serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". To that end said entities will put on the Farm Market report at 4am or the round table debate on the national debt in the wee hours --- simply so they can go back to the FCC at license renewal time and say "we did X number of hours of public service programming".

Never mind that that total makes up a tiny fraction that the greater proportion of the viewership/listenership isn't even aware of it, they count as "brownie points" for the license application.

Ratings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the above; they tell a Fox News or a CBS or a KRAP-FM how much it can charge for commercial time by mapping out who's watching/listening. Those numbers are pumped up by, above all, fear, loathing and sensationalism (hence the maxim "if it bleeds it leads"). They're pumped up by disasters and terror attacks and innuendo and horrible weather and clowns like Donald Rump. They are NOT pumped up by the Farm Report, the dry roundtable of what's happening in the Chinese economy or a political debate.

In short, airing a political debate is not competing for ratings. And usually it doesn't contain any ads anyway.

This misconception of what ratings mean and what they don't mean is one I have to constantly correct every time some wag wags in here toting the latest Fox ratings as if it's some measure of "approval" of what they're doing. It isn't. Ratings measure attention --- not approval. There's a vital psychological difference.

There's stuff in the world I understand and stuff I don't, but after 35 years in broadcasting this is definitely one of the former.

Now if X number of people sat out a debate because Rump wasn't there, all that effectively tells us is that X number of people would have been more interested in watching circus than in watching issues. It tells us nothing about those issues. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of "who won". Because it isn't a "contest". Even if Rump wants to spin it that way.

The VETS won and anybody with a brain KNOWS that. Which of course excuses you.

 

[DarkFury]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

The BASICS of ratings is to JUDGE who is being watched and listened to. Its SIDE EFFECT is used to sell time.

No, Pinkie. Selling ads is the whole reason ratings exist at all and their only purpose. They tell a potential advertiser, "we can deilver X amount of eyeballs, in these categories, for you to sell your chocolate bar". That's it. The end, full stop.

It has no function in a political debate, which is in effect a public service message. How many or how few watch that message is irrelevant; the point is that the media outlet provided it. And that means they can point to themselves and say "see? We contributed to the public discourse". And that's it.

I have no doubt Rump knows this as well as I do, as any broadcaster does. But he's counting on the unwashed to NOT know it. I just let the cat out of the bag.

Thank me later.

So the SUPER BOWL exists ONLY to sell products and NOT to tell who is number one? No wonder members think you are stupid.

In a real sense, yes it does, exactly. You have any idea how much money is tied up in setting up, hyping and disseminating the Super Bowl? You have any clue how much profit is made from it, regardless who plays or wins it?

If you think the point of a Stupor Bowl is to establish the best football team, you're extremely naïve.

You need a bigger shovel with that load you are pushing.

 

[westwall]

I watched the debate online. All in all it was pretty boring. Cruz was a big disappoinement. Talk about whining. His attempts at humor failed miserably as well. AND he blew his chances at the VP slot with his jabs at Trump.

The minute his ability to run for the Presidency came into question with threats of lawsuits his VP consideration went out the door. I don't think Trump ever considered him anyhow. I've said all along that I_think_Trump is going to grab someone from the private sector

If Trump is the nominee I think he will bring in an old school politico as VP. He needs someone who knows the ins and outs and he's smart enough to recruit from those who know the game.

I think his staff will be old school but his VP will be fresh. If he picks that Joni, he gets fresh and a woman to quell ANY anti-female crap the vagina party throws.

While your opinion has merit I disagree. He will go old school and a popular politico at that. Someone who hearkens back to Reagan who's constituency he hopes to garner. Condi would be a good choice but I doubt she is interested in the zoo any longer.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I watched the debate online. All in all it was pretty boring. Cruz was a big disappoinement. Talk about whining. His attempts at humor failed miserably as well. AND he blew his chances at the VP slot with his jabs at Trump.

The minute his ability to run for the Presidency came into question with threats of lawsuits his VP consideration went out the door. I don't think Trump ever considered him anyhow. I've said all along that I_think_Trump is going to grab someone from the private sector

That would be going against all convention which is what he is about. The conventional move would be to select a solid, unsullied Southern state governor because chances are he will be running against Hillary, who has Bernie down by 30+ points in SC.

2016 South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary - Polls - HuffPost Pollster

 

[DarkFury]

I watched the debate online. All in all it was pretty boring. Cruz was a big disappoinement. Talk about whining. His attempts at humor failed miserably as well. AND he blew his chances at the VP slot with his jabs at Trump.

The minute his ability to run for the Presidency came into question with threats of lawsuits his VP consideration went out the door. I don't think Trump ever considered him anyhow. I've said all along that I_think_Trump is going to grab someone from the private sector

If Trump is the nominee I think he will bring in an old school politico as VP. He needs someone who knows the ins and outs and he's smart enough to recruit from those who know the game.

I think his staff will be old school but his VP will be fresh. If he picks that Joni, he gets fresh and a woman to quell ANY anti-female crap the vagina party throws.

While your opinion has merit I disagree. He will go old school and a popular politico at that. Someone who hearkens back to Reagan who's constituency he hopes to garner. Condi would be a good choice but I doubt she is interested in the zoo any longer.

Condi would be great and I THINK she would do it. Women are NOT going to tell her no don't do it. Negro's are NOT going to tell her no don't do it.

And IF the DNC bashes her AFTER Obama? Party revolt! MASS scale.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I watched the debate online. All in all it was pretty boring. Cruz was a big disappoinement. Talk about whining. His attempts at humor failed miserably as well. AND he blew his chances at the VP slot with his jabs at Trump.

The minute his ability to run for the Presidency came into question with threats of lawsuits his VP consideration went out the door. I don't think Trump ever considered him anyhow. I've said all along that I_think_Trump is going to grab someone from the private sector

If Trump is the nominee I think he will bring in an old school politico as VP. He needs someone who knows the ins and outs and he's smart enough to recruit from those who know the game.

I think his staff will be old school but his VP will be fresh. If he picks that Joni, he gets fresh and a woman to quell ANY anti-female crap the vagina party throws.

While your opinion has merit I disagree. He will go old school and a popular politico at that. Someone who hearkens back to Reagan who's constituency he hopes to garner. Condi would be a good choice but I doubt she is interested in the zoo any longer.

He needs a Southerner to counter-balance those "New York values". Condi Rice is the one who let the Presidential Daily Brief about OBL go adrift in August 2001.
Who needs that POS on the ticket?

 

[Pogo]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

You're kidding right? EVERYTHING in TV is about ratings Pogo. You don't get the ratings, you don't get the big advertising dollars. A 30 second spot on The Factor will cost you hundreds of thousands more than on the Rachel Maddow show...why? Ratings.

Political debates --- and public service content in general --- isn't put on for "ratings". It's put on, if you really want to know, because Congress, through the FCC, declared decades ago that the airwaves belong to the public, and therefore broadcast licenses are awarded to entities that serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". To that end said entities will put on the Farm Market report at 4am or the round table debate on the national debt in the wee hours --- simply so they can go back to the FCC at license renewal time and say "we did X number of hours of public service programming".

Never mind that that total makes up a tiny fraction that the greater proportion of the viewership/listenership isn't even aware of it, they count as "brownie points" for the license application.

Ratings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the above; they tell a Fox News or a CBS or a KRAP-FM how much it can charge for commercial time by mapping out who's watching/listening. Those numbers are pumped up by, above all, fear, loathing and sensationalism (hence the maxim "if it bleeds it leads"). They're pumped up by disasters and terror attacks and innuendo and horrible weather and clowns like Donald Rump. They are NOT pumped up by the Farm Report, the dry roundtable of what's happening in the Chinese economy or a political debate.

In short, airing a political debate is not competing for ratings. And usually it doesn't contain any ads anyway.

This misconception of what ratings mean and what they don't mean is one I have to constantly correct every time some wag wags in here toting the latest Fox ratings as if it's some measure of "approval" of what they're doing. It isn't. Ratings measure attention --- not approval. There's a vital psychological difference.

There's stuff in the world I understand and stuff I don't, but after 35 years in broadcasting this is definitely one of the former.

Now if X number of people sat out a debate because Rump wasn't there, all that effectively tells us is that X number of people would have been more interested in watching circus than in watching issues. It tells us nothing about those issues. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of "who won". Because it isn't a "contest". Even if Rump wants to spin it that way.

The VETS won and anybody with a brain KNOWS that. Which of course excuses you.

The vets huh? Pfft.. Score another one for Gullible's Travels.

>> Trump has set up a website that is soliciting donations for the veterans. Yet, the Federalist reports, donations to the site actually go directly to Trump’s personal non-profit foundation. Of course, this is a charitable foundation and maybe it will pass all donations on to vets’ charities. The Federalist report, however, cites a recent analysis by the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack in recounting that Trump’s foundation has given far more to the Clinton Foundation than to veterans’ causes. << -- National Review

Moreover Rump has a long history of sweeping these same vets -- the ones behind whose skirts he's valiantly hiding from Megyn Kelly -- away from his edifice complex, whining to Mayor Bloomberg in 2004: “Whether they are veterans or not, they should not be allowed to sell on this most important and prestigious shopping street ... The image of New York City will suffer ... I hope you can stop this very deplorable situation before it is too late.” He also plunked huge ("yuuuuge") cement planters in front of his property to keep the same vets from sitting there because “all sorts of horrors" had "effectively ruined the beautiful ambience of the space which everyone loves so much."

Then there was this letter to the New York State Assembly:
“While disabled veterans should be given every opportunity to earn a living, is it fair to do so to the detriment of the city as a whole or its tax paying citizens and businesses?… Do we allow Fifth Avenue, one of the world’s finest and most luxurious shopping districts, to be turned into an outdoor flea market, clogging and seriously downgrading the area?” (source here)

Vets "won" my ass. The vets got used as a pawn on gullibles like you. A pawn convenient to him when it suits his purpose, and a nuisance to be swept away when it doesn't. Rump played you like a three-dollar banjo and you bought it. Three words come to mind when I read a post like yours Pinkie: "Hook, line and sinker".

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I watched the debate online. All in all it was pretty boring. Cruz was a big disappoinement. Talk about whining. His attempts at humor failed miserably as well. AND he blew his chances at the VP slot with his jabs at Trump.

The minute his ability to run for the Presidency came into question with threats of lawsuits his VP consideration went out the door. I don't think Trump ever considered him anyhow. I've said all along that I_think_Trump is going to grab someone from the private sector

If Trump is the nominee I think he will bring in an old school politico as VP. He needs someone who knows the ins and outs and he's smart enough to recruit from those who know the game.

I think his staff will be old school but his VP will be fresh. If he picks that Joni, he gets fresh and a woman to quell ANY anti-female crap the vagina party throws.

While your opinion has merit I disagree. He will go old school and a popular politico at that. Someone who hearkens back to Reagan who's constituency he hopes to garner. Condi would be a good choice but I doubt she is interested in the zoo any longer.

Condi would be great and I THINK she would do it. Women are NOT going to tell her no don't do it. Negro's are NOT going to tell her no don't do it.

And IF the DNC bashes her AFTER Obama? Party revolt! MASS scale.

Yeah, just don't put her in charge of monitoring ISIS. She did such a great job with AQ.

 

[cereal_killer]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

You're kidding right? EVERYTHING in TV is about ratings Pogo. You don't get the ratings, you don't get the big advertising dollars. A 30 second spot on The Factor will cost you hundreds of thousands more than on the Rachel Maddow show...why? Ratings.

Political debates --- and public service content in general --- isn't put on for "ratings". It's put on, if you really want to know, because Congress, through the FCC, declared decades ago that the airwaves belong to the public, and therefore broadcast licenses are awarded to entities that serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". To that end said entities will put on the Farm Market report at 4am or the round table debate on the national debt in the wee hours --- simply so they can go back to the FCC at license renewal time and say "we did X number of hours of public service programming".

Never mind that that total makes up a tiny fraction that the greater proportion of the viewership/listenership isn't even aware of it, they count as "brownie points" for the license application.

Ratings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the above; they tell a Fox News or a CBS or a KRAP-FM how much it can charge for commercial time by mapping out who's watching/listening. Those numbers are pumped up by, above all, fear, loathing and sensationalism (hence the maxim "if it bleeds it leads"). They're pumped up by disasters and terror attacks and innuendo and horrible weather and clowns like Donald Rump. They are NOT pumped up by the Farm Report, the dry roundtable of what's happening in the Chinese economy or a political debate.

In short, airing a political debate is not competing for ratings. And usually it doesn't contain any ads anyway.

This misconception of what ratings mean and what they don't mean is one I have to constantly correct every time some wag wags in here toting the latest Fox ratings as if it's some measure of "approval" of what they're doing. It isn't. Ratings measure attention --- not approval. There's a vital psychological difference.

There's stuff in the world I understand and stuff I don't, but after 35 years in broadcasting this is definitely one of the former.

Now if X number of people sat out a debate because Rump wasn't there, all that effectively tells us is that X number of people would have been more interested in watching circus than in watching issues. It tells us nothing about those issues. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of "who won". Because it isn't a "contest". Even if Rump wants to spin it that way.

We're talking at cross purposes here. Forget the debates. Ratings are everything to a network. That is my only point. Every year the networks are trying to lock up the prime time slots with shows that are ratings whores. It's a war every season that the networks go thorough

 

[Pogo]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Once again -- "ratings" are completely irrelevant to a political debate.

Ratings are for selling things. If you're not either buying or selling ad time --- they have no meaning whatsoever.

You're kidding right? EVERYTHING in TV is about ratings Pogo. You don't get the ratings, you don't get the big advertising dollars. A 30 second spot on The Factor will cost you hundreds of thousands more than on the Rachel Maddow show...why? Ratings.

Political debates --- and public service content in general --- isn't put on for "ratings". It's put on, if you really want to know, because Congress, through the FCC, declared decades ago that the airwaves belong to the public, and therefore broadcast licenses are awarded to entities that serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity". To that end said entities will put on the Farm Market report at 4am or the round table debate on the national debt in the wee hours --- simply so they can go back to the FCC at license renewal time and say "we did X number of hours of public service programming".

Never mind that that total makes up a tiny fraction that the greater proportion of the viewership/listenership isn't even aware of it, they count as "brownie points" for the license application.

Ratings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with the above; they tell a Fox News or a CBS or a KRAP-FM how much it can charge for commercial time by mapping out who's watching/listening. Those numbers are pumped up by, above all, fear, loathing and sensationalism (hence the maxim "if it bleeds it leads"). They're pumped up by disasters and terror attacks and innuendo and horrible weather and clowns like Donald Rump. They are NOT pumped up by the Farm Report, the dry roundtable of what's happening in the Chinese economy or a political debate.

In short, airing a political debate is not competing for ratings. And usually it doesn't contain any ads anyway.

This misconception of what ratings mean and what they don't mean is one I have to constantly correct every time some wag wags in here toting the latest Fox ratings as if it's some measure of "approval" of what they're doing. It isn't. Ratings measure attention --- not approval. There's a vital psychological difference.

There's stuff in the world I understand and stuff I don't, but after 35 years in broadcasting this is definitely one of the former.

Now if X number of people sat out a debate because Rump wasn't there, all that effectively tells us is that X number of people would have been more interested in watching circus than in watching issues. It tells us nothing about those issues. And it means absolutely nothing in terms of "who won". Because it isn't a "contest". Even if Rump wants to spin it that way.

We're talking at cross purposes here. Forget the debates. Ratings are everything to a network. That is my only point. Every year the networks are trying to lock up the prime time slots with shows that are ratings whores. It's a war every season that the networks go thorough

Ratings are everything to a (commercial) network in the big picture, over time.

But not for the purpose of this specific broadcast. Unlike the rest of the channel's fare, this one is not there to compete.

Hey, news is expensive to do and brings little return in the way of ratings. All those evening network news broadcasts were and are loss leaders, subsidized by the prime time sitcoms that follow them. Nobody makes money from straight news. That's why what Fox does -- again in the big picture, over the entire week -- is not news but News Theater; it makes its money (and ratings) not from reporting news but from running talking heads talking about the news. And the angry old white guys pounding on tables and the lovely young bimbos in short skirts are there to augment that. It's base emotion, and that's what sells. Dry information doesn't.

In the case of this particular program though, it's dry information, and all those ratings-grabbing hooks are just not in the mix. When Rump was involved in it, he was a hook -- because he's a controversy. But again, that's backing away from dry information and back into the realm of entertainment. Which is not news.

And again, a political debate broadcast rarely (if ever) even breaks for advertising. Because that's not the point. At best it serves as a lead-in to the pundit patrol that follows after the debate to play the spin game. Then you're back into ratings, because then you're back into base emotion.

 

[Pogo]

Looks like Trump stole Fox's thunder. Not good for those hoping he'd fail at stealing viewers. They hyped this debate more than the FBN one two weeks ago so its pretty obvious his absence had a impact.

Who won the ratings race, Fox News or Donald Trump?

Btw C_K .... Fox News itself is hailing the broadcast as the second highest-rated show in its history at 12.5 million viewers -- a figure that is confirmed in your own CNN link.

Does that mean that, on the contrary, Fox "won"? Nope. It's two networks who traditionally compete, each trying to spin numbers in its own favor, while both play loosely with the meaning of "ratings".

And shame on both of them for so playing. It degrades the entire process of political discourse into all the deeper meaning of selling a Big Mac.

No wonder we have a disinterested and uninformed populace.