Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Network newscasts receive substantially higher ratings than cable news
I wouldn't know, show me.
Fat Knowledge: Network Nightly News vs. Cable
According to MediaBistro.com, on Sept 20 the NBC Nightly News had 8.2 million viewers, and CBS and ABC each had 7.5 million viewers (for a total of 23.2 million). On the cable side the largest audience was for The O'Reilly Factor with 2 million (or 3.1 million if you include his rebroadcast) viewers. So the network audiences are still much larger than any particular cable show, but their audiences are going down steadily (as seen in the graph) due to the internet and cable news.
With all this speculation going on, what do y'all think about silver and precious metals in the near future?
It's a bubble. It's the dot.com, or the real estate, all over again.
If you enjoyed buying Yahoo at $200 a share, or paying a million dollars for your 600,000 home,
you'll love buying precious metals at these prices.
I wouldn't know, show me.
Fat Knowledge: Network Nightly News vs. Cable
According to MediaBistro.com, on Sept 20 the NBC Nightly News had 8.2 million viewers, and CBS and ABC each had 7.5 million viewers (for a total of 23.2 million). On the cable side the largest audience was for The O'Reilly Factor with 2 million (or 3.1 million if you include his rebroadcast) viewers. So the network audiences are still much larger than any particular cable show, but their audiences are going down steadily (as seen in the graph) due to the internet and cable news.
uhm hello you're doing it again. cable is a paid and limited service. the networks are not. of course the nets reach more they always have and probably always will..and that being said since the nets and adding in cnn are so huge in shear throw weight whats the big deal about fox anyway? In viewership they are overwhelmed......they are on media outlet? so?
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree
Ya know,, I heard on Fox News, The Number One News Source in America.
I don't think Palin is to blame for the actions of Lougher. However, the low-rent way in which she handled the aftermath does tie her to the event.
Not in a "you are responsible for this violence" way, but in a "once again you insist on making an unrelated story all about you".
It's hurting her in the polls, as you can see from my earlier posts.
how did she make an unrelated story about her? that horse was out of the barn and the door was carried away on the hot air of the krugmans et al.
The "blood libel" (I don't find the term offensive, just referencing the speech) public service announcement was a bridge too far.
The classiest thing for Palin to do would have been to release a simple statement along the lines of: "I offer condolences and prayers for the victims. I absolutely reject that the actions of a criminal were influenced by my political activism, yada, yada, yada."
Instead, Palin gave a prepared speech to pick on her favorite target: the "lame stream media" and how they have victimized her. That was low-rent considering the people who had been killed and wounded.
This isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the American people.
CNN Poll: Palin unfavorable rating at all time high – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
The "blood libel" (I don't find the term offensive, just referencing the speech) public service announcement was a bridge too far.
The classiest thing for Palin to do would have been to release a simple statement along the lines of: "I offer condolences and prayers for the victims. I absolutely reject that the actions of a criminal were influenced by my political activism, yada, yada, yada."
Instead, Palin gave a prepared speech to pick on her favorite target: the "lame stream media" and how they have victimized her. That was low-rent considering the people who had been killed and wounded.
This isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the American people.
CNN Poll: Palin unfavorable rating at all time high CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
are you inferring that her 'speech' was the reason for the spike?
Fat Knowledge: Network Nightly News vs. Cable
According to MediaBistro.com, on Sept 20 the NBC Nightly News had 8.2 million viewers, and CBS and ABC each had 7.5 million viewers (for a total of 23.2 million). On the cable side the largest audience was for The O'Reilly Factor with 2 million (or 3.1 million if you include his rebroadcast) viewers. So the network audiences are still much larger than any particular cable show, but their audiences are going down steadily (as seen in the graph) due to the internet and cable news.
uhm hello you're doing it again. cable is a paid and limited service. the networks are not. of course the nets reach more they always have and probably always will..and that being said since the nets and adding in cnn are so huge in shear throw weight whats the big deal about fox anyway? In viewership they are overwhelmed......they are on media outlet? so?
Try to keep up with the thread Traj..
It was in response to the statement that FoxNews is the Number One news source in America
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree
Ya know,, I heard on Fox News, The Number One News Source in America.
Network newscasts receive substantially higher ratings than cable news
gold is a bubble? in that context everything is a bubble. go check the gold price in 2001 and look at it now.
sure people will pay 1 million for a home that whose purchase price is 600k..so what? this is new?
The "blood libel" (I don't find the term offensive, just referencing the speech) public service announcement was a bridge too far.
The classiest thing for Palin to do would have been to release a simple statement along the lines of: "I offer condolences and prayers for the victims. I absolutely reject that the actions of a criminal were influenced by my political activism, yada, yada, yada."
Instead, Palin gave a prepared speech to pick on her favorite target: the "lame stream media" and how they have victimized her. That was low-rent considering the people who had been killed and wounded.
This isn't just my opinion. It's the opinion of the American people.
CNN Poll: Palin unfavorable rating at all time high – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
are you inferring that her 'speech' was the reason for the spike?
Yes. As is the CNN article. People are sick of Palin.
Her chances at gaining the GOP nomination in 2012 are gone. The shooting in Arizona and the wounding of Giffords will hang around her neck from now on. Her map showing Giffords's district with crosshairs on it will be part of any campaign against her.
But that will not keep her from running as a Tea Bagger. That will be her fate in 2012.
gold is a bubble? in that context everything is a bubble. go check the gold price in 2001 and look at it now.
sure people will pay 1 million for a home that whose purchase price is 600k..so what? this is new?
Very few people buy gold to sell it at a higher value.
If I may, I think what you mean is its not a speculative turn over device for the short term.....Its a 'hedge'.
They buy it to hang on as some sort of emergency fund if things go down the crapper.
I like Dave Ramsey's take on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwgUBwX2dzQ
Regardless of what the loonies on the right think or spew, the fact remains that Obama is more respected nationally and internationally. Nationally, and especially internationally Palin is seen as joke.
Further more, the thought of a Palin in the Presidency scares the sane at the thought of such a dunce with nukes under her power.
Last, but not least, despite what the loonies on the right think or spew, Obama's ratings are soaring and will only continue to soar and will only continue to rise as long as the current crop of Republicans in power continue on their path to humiliate themselves and obstruct any true and/or possible progress
Regardless of what the loon MarcATL thinks and says obama is not respected by other nations and most diffenantly is not respected by most here in America.
Well, that or the USSR really was
a.) evil, and
b.) an empire
The Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein were both evil, but I'm trying to make a more nuanced point. I'm suggesting that these threats were inflated for political reasons (some of them good reasons) - and, moreover, I'm suggesting that a rhetoric of evil was used to describe a much more benign or technical geopolitical phenomenon; and that this rhetoric of evil was designed to "sell" the policy to the low information voters. My suggestion requires that you see the Cold War and War on Terrorism as more than simplistic battles against evil, but larger contexts for American intervention in important regions, that is, contexts for the protection and acquisition of vital geopolitical assets.
Let me try to simplify this for you. Next time you go into Walmart or any other large Department store, take a look at the regions where the products are manufactured. Some of these regions are unstable. Moreover, because they are unstable, they sometimes require "military stabilization". Military stabilization is the kind of thing that would happen if Iran tried to block the Straight of Hormuz, or if the Sandinistas threatened our access to South American sugar, or if any country decided to nationalize a resource that our transnationals controlled or economy needed. The Soviet and Islamic threats, however real, have both been used to justify creating a military presence near resources upon which our economy and lifestyle depend. America did not invent this strategy. This is what superpowers do. Get over it. If we didn't do it, someone else would. The food chain is not for the feint of heart. Innocent blood is sometimes spilled. That's why the lion has claws. [People do not understand the reality of what happens when powerful organisms take care of their needs]
Listen. Britain did not say that it was in India for the spices (which was the equivalent of oil to 16th century capitalism); rather, it dressed its geopolitical goals in a grandiose war for civilization. In the foreground we heard glorious stories of how Mother England was civilizing the barbarians -- indeed, cleaning up the natives with the King's English -- while in the background we saw Gandhi's head bloodied with the butt of a rifle.
The rightwing voter (the innocent homelanders of every nation) have always been protected, along with the women and children, from what men must do in "the outlying colonies". Most people don't understand that global politics is a contact sport that requires very tough ethical choices. It's much easier to tell people that their nation is always fighting "the good fight" against evil. [The mere fact that you cannot imagine a more complex scenario is proof that people truly believe their government and the various doctrinal systems used to mobilize a nation]
Son, the economies of Great Nations depend on resources from dangerous parts of the globe. The Cold War was used increasingly as a context to bring those dangerous but necessary regions under our protective wing. Washington and Moscow both used the Cold War threat to consolidate control over their various satellites. This is not rocket science, it's a ho-hum day in the life of a Superpower. (yawn) [You have to learn how to question Washington. The Right has always had a problem questioning Washington when it comes to war. At the end of the day, they trust their government leaders deeply.]
Regardless of what the loonies on the right think or spew, the fact remains that Obama is more respected nationally and internationally. Nationally, and especially internationally Palin is seen as joke.
Further more, the thought of a Palin in the Presidency scares the sane at the thought of such a dunce with nukes under her power.
Last, but not least, despite what the loonies on the right think or spew, Obama's ratings are soaring and will only continue to soar and will only continue to rise as long as the current crop of Republicans in power continue on their path to humiliate themselves and obstruct any true and/or possible progress
Regardless of what the loon MarcATL thinks and says obama is not respected by other nations and most diffenantly is not respected by most here in America.
Really? Back that up with a link.
Palin is just too polarizing to be elected to the presidency...no doubt about that.
I get tired of the left crying about the "crosshairs" and seems to be blinded to the democrats using a "bullseye". What's up with that?
The facts are simple..
Palin put her crosshairs on Giffords
Giffords objected to the violence themed rhetoric
Palin laughed and said "Don't retreat....RELOAD"
Whether she likes it or not, Palin is tied to Giffords. Her callous response will come back to haunt her. Her facebook response after the shooting showed she does not have what it takes to be president. Making the Giffords shooting about the further victimization of Palin will not bode well with the voters
Good post, thank you. Why is it so hard for some people to grasp what you said above?? It's just amazing.
hahahaham, why is so hard for people to grasp. because the MAJORITY of the American people don't AGREE with you useful tools.
February declared a "Palin free Month" ! Happy Valentines Day!
Join me: UPC.bz - Send a Message
