Jon Stewart’s Ratings Are Now Higher Than All Of Fox News
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The thing that bugs me about FoxNews is it doesn't matter if you like it or not watch it or not it doesn't matter what they do. When that cable bill comes you pay for it.Cable T.V. is all or nothing.They have a huge a advantage 150,000,000 people paying for it every month.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I did not know there were so few..What is all the fuss about so few people listening to a gaggle of liars!
More people than that watch cartoons! Adults included! Why all the coverage?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
There's an easy solution for that. Drop your cable provider until they get rid of Fox. And be sure to tell them why they lost your business. I did!
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I like that idea...if enough ppl did that maybe, just maybe things would change...but I don't see it happening...we are so programmed to put up with all their garbage....
Keith Alan Burrows
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:40 am
And, sadly, almost every store one goes into (be it Kroger's, Hotel lobbies & bars, Best Buy, restaurants, etc. where there is a television) invariably it is set on Faux News in Dayton, Ohio. Quite revolting if you ask me. Sadly I would have no TV reception if I left cable, as our Dish services have Fox too. It is everywhere! What was once a blue state in the 70's is now going red. *sigh*
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:31 am
We used to pay over $100 per month for COX cable internet + TV.
Then we got a $60 ROKU box and a $9 per month Netflix subscription, dropped everything from COX except for the Internet. Now our bill is $60 per month and we get everything we care about. Just a thought.
Good for you, Craig! I would love to, but I haven't had cable for several years now. >chuckle<
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
nice! i haven't had cable either for at least 5 years now.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:24 am
I also cancelled my cable last year. Fox and Disney were key reasons. There are other ways to get decent programming nowadays.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I don't have cable. I have an xbox (Gold 10.00 a month) and internet (34.00 a month) I subscribe to Hulu Plus (7.99 a month) and Netflix (8.99 a month) I rent current movies from Youtube movies (99 cents to $3). No Fox News but I get all the John Stewart I want. Can watch on my IPhone, on my T.V., and my laptop. A bargain at $60.00 a month. Cable T.V will be dead in the next generation.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:58 am
That makes absolutely no sense. If you read the article, you would see that there are tons of people who still watch the FNC and cable channels are not put out there individually. FNC is typically part of an expanded tier consisting of up to 50 channels. Most people only view a limited amount anyways. I can't stand FNC and so I dont view it, but I am not going to become just like them by calling for bans and attacking things that are not the problem.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:02 am
I like this idea too... but... I like watching MSNBC. Rachel Maddow is awesome!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Then watch her on the web. I watch her on my Android.
Cable TV is dead.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
It affects their advertisers. The lower the numbers and less income they make from ad revenues. These ratings are crucial for gauging the monetary value of the AD slot. So if Jon Stewart is taking their viewership away, then he is costing them money.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
average age of the fox viewer is 65, that explains all the adult diaper ads
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:31 am
Well some of us "Seniors" are life long Democrats or Progressive types and know what liars and posers Fox pundits are. We got rid of Glenn Beck and now we are after the entire Network. GRANNY POWER!!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:14 am
It doesn't matter what person or network you get rid of,we have to get rid of the whole capitalist system.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:29 am
I am 67 and I only need to use those adult diapers because of Fox news. Sometimes their programming is so absurd that I am laughing so hard I can't make it all the way to the bathroom.
Actually, I did watch Fox up till about 2 years ago, along with MSNBC and CNN ( when you're retired, you have a lot of time). And, Fox didn't seem substantially more crazy than the other networks. In the last two years, however, they tell lies so totally past reason that I can't believe that anyone seriously can believe them. Even those who defend them, I believe, know that they are being lied to, but are drunk on the Fox koolaid that whatever lies we may be telling you, at least we are saving you from the Democrats.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
comedy central is on cable tv
fox news and comedy central are both owned by viacom
so how does fox have a huge advantage of people paying for it every month when they also pay for comedy central, and both stations belong to the same company?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Fox is owned by NewsCorp, not Viacom.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Fox News is not owned by Viacom, it's owned by NewsCorp.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
FOX News is owned by Murdoch's News Corp. not Viacom, a completely different company that has nothing to do with Murdoch.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:28 am
Fox News and Comedy Central are both owned by Murdoch which is quite ironic.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
What are you talking about? Three of those so-called "lazy liberals" corrected the original post within five minutes. That's hardly careless or lazy.
Maybe if you weren't so careless with your reading comprehension, you wouldn't be asking for a brain.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:31 am
You're all missing the point.
This has nothing to do with people's monthly cable bills.
The sponsors pay for it by purchasing ad time.
The amount they are willing to spend on it depends upon viewership (not just total numbers, but demographics too).
In other words, it is all about the ratings.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Fox gets paid by cable customers. If you want to watch your local Fox TV channel via cable or satellite, you have to pay Rupert Murdock.
And he will not sell the Fox local channels (which are free to people with rabbit ears) unless you also buy Fox News. Most cable systems also have to bundle the Fox business, sports and movie channels in, too.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in the United States of America to subscribe to MSNBC without also paying for Fox News Channel. The cable thieves call it bundling, I call it antitrust and unconscionable.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Wow is this the worst thing in your life right now? Getting a channel you don't want? Nobody's forcing you to buy cable.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:10 am
FOX News is partially owned by a Saudi Prince, run by an Aussie who's married to a Communist Chinese National. And they have the balls to call it "America's Newsroom"...keep watching and believing the seditionist rhetoric. The Chinese and the rest of our enemies love FOX News!
Oh come on people... all of you are missing the point. Fox & Stewart are BOTH on cable. Can't drop one for the other. The point is that we should be able to have one without the other. More choice in our ability to choose which channels we WANT to subscribe too. That could work against us too...
Wow... liberals... better "fact check" before you comment... let's stay focused now...
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Wow ... conservatives ... better fact check.
It's not liberals who favor the current cable bundling laws, it's the cable companies and broadcasters. Like Fox. Like Comcast.
If you say it is "conservative" to demand that cable companies offer "a la carte" subscriptions, why don't you do some research to see how the NAB, NCTA and other giant corporations feel about that?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:49 am
You overlooked that ComedyCentral, the channel airing The Daily Show, is in the same boat as Fox News. They're both basic cable.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:47 am
That is disturbing, maybe sometime in the future we can pick and choose our own line-up of cable channels ( or better yet ), the shows we are willing to pay for verses most of the garbage that is now presented on all television networks. I know my list would
be small and definately not include any fox channel shows!
Harold Miller 4 mayor of San Francisco
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:41 am
The high cost of Cable is why I switched to rabbit ears, and now with H/D It's like watching Cable again...
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Most cultures respect older people for the wisdom they have accumulated. Here you wait for them to "die off" so that correct thinking will be unhindered by the wisdom of our elders. This abandonment of established wisdom will have dire consequences in the long run.
I quit my cable company too, but because they were too expensive. I don't see the point in whining about Fox, especially to the TV providers. They are never going to remove a major network and I don't hear any of you crying about the totally worthless stations that abound on cable/satellite lineups.
Fox news is popular because a lot of people like it. CNN had its day before there was any serious competition. Every news source has a bias. Jon Stewart is a comedian who plays faux journalist and jumps on all things conservative, so what makes him any less biased and unfair than Fox or any other staion? G
Grow up people.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The difference is simple. Jon Stewart doesn't pretend to be a newsman, he's straight forward a comedian. The "fair and balanced" act at Faux hides their opinion panels in such a way you can't tell they aren't intended to be news.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
The differece is, Jon Stewart is more intelligent than Fox News' conservative "journalists". Conservatives are backward thinking, and are 99% of the reason nobody in this country can get along.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Not to worry though. Our cable bills isn't all that is paying them. They also get paid through their advertising. The lower the ratings, the less they can charge advertisers. So that hurts them too.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
and your point is?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
FoxNews is NOT news, it is NOT factual and many of us would rather not be paying for it! I don't mind paying for things I don't watch to get the entire package of programming, but I do mind paying for them to LIE and to promote the Repuglican Party!
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Would you go as far as saying it's socialist!? You may find that you enjoy some of the things on fox if you are truely complaining about paying for something in a package that you dont entirely subscribe to...
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Stop the red-baiting. This is America, where we are free to hold our political/economic beliefs as we see fit. Socialism is not anti-democracy, it is an alternative to capitalism. Let's see, capitalism has given us the Wall Street debacle (which includes the housing mess and the high unemployment we are facing), environmental destruction, an enormous gap between the rich and the poor (the rich and the middle class, for that matter), and on and on. Our minor foray into socialism might bring us a little bit closer to universal health insurance. Hmm..
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I like your views...Mary and agree...
Richard Paul, DD
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I jsut wanted you to know that the GOVERNMENT didn't mandate this recession, but rather they mandated banks taking monies to stop a depression.
Companies aren't hiring right now because there is a lack of people buying things (consumer confidence). Consumer confidence isn't high right now because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because of the lack of incentive to create jobs. There is a lack of incentive to create jobs because the taxes are low and the tax breaks for creating jobs isn't there.
HaveNObrains, a simple Economics 101 course would tell you this. Had you invested as much time into educating yourself as you do attacking people, then you probably would understand these things.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Not to mention that the GOP blocked bills that would prevent what happened. Just like they blocked bills to stop speculation on the gas prices
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Wall Street did exactly what the government told them to do?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:24 am
People seem to forget that "capitalism" is NOT a political system... it's an economic one. Socialism cannot be an "alternative" to democracy. See how our politicians manipulate us? Do you see that twist? Scary...
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
I got news for you buddy, everything the government does by definition is socialistic in nature. Socialism is pooling resources for the common good. By that definition, even military spending, which the loves, is socialist.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Mr. (Don't)"HaveABrain," that's simply not true! Whether you realize it or not, you just defined communism, *not* socialism! Those are two very, VERY different things!
There's a difference between forced communistic regime, and socialistic policy. I'm guessing you're a big fan of the 50's, right? Well, what made the 50's so great WAS SOCIALISM! If you don't believe me, search YouTube for this one interview done w/Ayn Rand in 1958. I forgot who was interviewing her, but you'll be able to recognize the video because they're smoking and it's in black and white. (Yay '50's! lol)
Anyway, the interviewer is absolutely appalled at Rand's "altruism is evil" bullshit, and he even talks about how altruism *AND SOCIALISM* are the fundamental cornerstones of society today [in the '50's], and what makes it so great! I'm paraphrasing, of course, but you really should watch it. You may find it thought-provoking and life-changing for you.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
They're not socialist. They're fascist.
In case you don’t understand the concepts underlying the three forms of economic systems which deal with ownership and incentive:
• Free Enterprise, where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by private owners,
• Fascism, where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by the state,
• Socialism, where capital goods are owned by the state and controlled by the state.
These are separate construct from the four forms of government:
• Anarchy (rule by no one,)
• Dictatorship or Monarchy (rule by one person,)
• Oligarchy (rule by a few persons,)
• Democracy (rule by the majority [also called parliament by consensus.])
They are NOT mutually exclusive in the larger context of a political systems.
It is necessary to combine the three because there are features of each which complement and fill in the bid spots in each.
A successful country is one where the systems are successfullyblended.
An unsuccessful country is one where there is an unnecessary bias towards any one form.
For example, that is why we have a unified power grid but each utility/corporation cooperates in maintaining the unified power grid while trying to minimize the costs, possibly to maximize their profitability.
This cooperative feature is arrived at regardless of the economic system or political system.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Look, this is about the fairness doctrine not being used/enforced. It you don't want to be lied too, this is the "policy" and/or standard that should be in place across the board for all news channels. Look at the Sunday morning political programs on ABC, NBC, CBS. Republican talking heads out number Democratic ones on an average of four to one. THAT is not fair and balanced... and it's not even cable news!?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
My point is if there was pick and choose ala carte cable T.V. FoxNews would drop like a box of hot rocks.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Actually, that's what I'd like to lobby the cable/dish companies for. I bet they would have a huge increase in customers if one company allowed us to order a la carte-- but I would actually still want to have Fox. I love to watch them squirm when they announce the improved economic news, the Osama kill, etc. Stewart is supposed to be the comedian, but he could never come up with anything as funny as the pain they have to go through to try to figure out how nothing good that happened has anything to do with Obama.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
How naive people are.
Apparently, the only reason people watch Fox News is because it is on basic cable packages and the TV automatically turn on to Fox News and people are forced to watch them because they can't change the channel.
If you give people the choice to choose their cable channels, no one will pick Fox news and they will dissapear, and of course everyone will choose Comedy Central.
I am in Canada and am not sure if pbs is part of basic cable, but I wonder how many people don't like paying for that channel as part of their package.
I am on satellite and as part of my basic package, I have to pay for channels that I don't want to. I agree that a person should be able to buy the channels they want, but I am not dumb enough to say that those channels I don't want to buy will dissappear just because I don't like them.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Can't wait for the Fox fanboys to come stormfronting in here to try to defend America's corporate propaganda network.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Just laugh at them, long and hard. They are pathetic blowhards who don't even tell good jokes.
Nobody takes them seriously anyway.
They're just blowing wind from Rupert Murdoch's butt.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Jon Stewart, first of all, is a comic genius. True, his writers deserve a great deal of credit, but his delivery and all-around likeability is what makes him so popular. Five years ago, I wouldn't have said The Daily Show was my favorite, but now I can say that with all sincerity. It's only in the past five years that I have taken a keen interest in politics (thank you, Dubya). Stewart's show is the "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, in a most delightful way" answer to helping people make intelligent decisions at the ballot box by exposing the frauds and idiots who are trying to take over our country. Thank you Mr. Stewart; we are forever in your debt.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I couldn't have said it better! A big thumbs up to Jon stewart and Colbert.
That is a great way to put it, the spoonful of sugar analogy. Perfect. The country sucks and there is little we can do about it, but at least we can laugh while we try to fix it.
Guy who doesn't want to give his name
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
The thing is, Jon Stewart actually knows what he is talking about. He almost never goes blindly into saying things. He researches topics, and talks about them. This becomes glaringly obvious when he goes on as an interviewee and makes the host look like a glaring idiot when they try to challenge him on things. The writers and staff deserve credit, sure, but don't try to subtract Jon out of that picture.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:50 am
I agree with all of you (Tulsa, Windy, Peg) and just love Stewart (and Bill Maher & Colbert too!). My families have been here since 1629 & 1630 and what a mistake it was to leave the UK! I am saddened by what could be a great country that has turned into one governed by nut jobs as America falls further behind in education. Hell around Ohio, many people don't even speak English properly and it is their FIRST language! The 'rednecking' of America is what is the norm here.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Bill Moyers quote on The Daily Show June 1: “The truth goes down better in a democracy when it’s marinated in humor.”
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
An even better Moyer quote was when Stewart asked him why he was the first person in Moyers book. Moyers response; "Because we couldn't get Mark Twain". I don't think you could have a better complement than that.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
This is great news. I love Jon Stewart, but like you said he attracts the younger crowd and that is important.
Slightly off topic, just heard that Dean told the Democrats that Sarah Palin could win over Obama and that the republicans should not dismiss her. What is going on? Are the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
No....He is obviously pushing for her for a reason:-) But let's not get complacent.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Think about it, if Palin runs it could split the Rep. Party and make it easier for Obama to win. Do wish Ron Paul could win - at least he is getting ideas out in front of people
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Dude, Palin is the best hope for the democrats if she runs her own candidates.
The Republicans are crapping their pants over the thought of Palin doing exactly that.
She'd seize the bottom of the barrel voters right out from the republican machine and split the vote and the party into a version of the fractious democrats.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
jon stewart brings so much intelligence and research to his programs. bless his team and jon, they are inspirational, thank goodness.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
While this is excellent news, I hope we never hear about ratings from Jon Stewart. FOX (particularly O'Reilly) is always going on about their ratings. One reason Jon Stewart is so likable is that he never brags.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Jon Stewart does not look at ratings I don't think. He also does not consider himself a news show. It's funny that O'rielly is the only one that beats him out since he has stated that he likes o'rielly so much and goes on his show so often.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I wonder what the numbers are when you count viewership on thedailyshow.com as well.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
As well as The Daily Show on Hulu.com, and Bittorrent downloads via The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
On the digital front, show sites for “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” were the top two sites among all late night show sites in Unique Visitors and Total Minutes/Time Spent during April 2011 (the last full month of data reported by comScore MediaMetrix), with thedailyshow.com dominating the field with 2.6 million Unique Visitors and 21 million minutes Time Spent on the site, three times the amount of time spent on third-place TeamCoco.com and triple the combined total time spent on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” “The Late Show with David Letterman,” “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon,” and “Lopez Tonight.” (source: comScore MediaMetrix, 4/1/11-4/30/11; see chart below for detailed data)
"In addition to their linear and digital dominance, “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” also boast the most affluent viewership with “The Daily Show” viewers earning a median household income of $78,000 to rank #1 among all late night talk shows, broadcast and cable. Viewers of “The Colbert Report” place second with a median income of $73,000. (source: Nielsen Media Research; see chart below for detailed data)" from the link above
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Damned good point. I get mine from thedailyshow.com. Haven't had cable in years.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Because it conflicts with my schedule, I never watch Jon Stewart live. I always tape his and Colbert's shows and watch later. Did the ratings people take that into consideration?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:23 am
I dont think they can know who is taping it and who isnt at this point. Although I very well could be wrong about the ratings system and how it is derived
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Jon Stewart is the face and humor for the 'rest of us'.
Cannot imagine 2001-2008 without him.
T.Y. Daily show.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I also cannot imagine 2011-2012 without Stewart and Colbert. This will be a brutal campaign year and those two will keep showing us the lies and hype that the candidates throw at us.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Were very lucky to have the daily show team on our side. Proof positive that integrity and honesty win in the end. If theres anything i can do for you mr. Stewart please dont hesitate to ask.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
I think hannity will be next. His ratings are down around where Becks were. Which might be good, they could take his picture out of the dictionary next to "Liar"
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
most young people like to watch the Jon Stewart show because they do not follow politics and do not care. They enjoy the comedy. They also watch since they are basically liberal. I think Winston Churchill stated that if you are not a liberal when you are young, you do not have a heart and if you are not a conservative when you are older, you do not have a brain. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Wrong, watching Stewart without having an idea of what is going on would be pointless. His jokes REQUIRE you to have a fair understanding of politics and the news. And notice the ratings for Jon are up in EVERY Demographic- even the 34-49 group.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
I'm 58 and NEVER miss Jon's show. I also traveled from Arizona to D.C. for the Sanity Rally.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
You are right, a joke is not a joke when you have no idea what the person is talking about.
When I was very naive (a long time ago) I could not get many jokes, because I did not know what they were talking about.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
No. Churchill did not say that quote, though it has frequently been misappropriated to him.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
so how would this fake winston churchill quote explain the fact that Fox News has lost viewers in the 55+ range as well as in all other demographics? That somehow those conservatives suddenly lost their brains?
and how does fake winston churchill explain that stewart gained in ALL demographics, from age 18 to 65?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
The quote is from Lord Chesterfield, and you need to drink more Yuengling.
Conservative Winston Churchill spoke more like this: On Health Care
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:11 am
Just for that snarky little comment Mr. Nasty Liberal I have subscribed to you. This ought to be a lesson for you if you post that kind of stuff on YouTube! :P
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I'm 53 and I try never to miss Jon Stewart or Colbert. They make me laugh out loud. And as a big time news junkie the reason I love them both is because they expose the lies and hypocrisy of the regular "news" media such as Fox, but to a lesser degree CNN and MSNBC. Stewart has single-handedly parodied Beck into Ridicule-Land. He's a huge reason why people are taking a second look and wondering why they're listening to Fox. Stewart skewers pomposity and bias and spin.
BTW, I'm waaay more liberal now than I was at 19 thanks to all my life experiences and my work as a trial lawyer. Please stop quoting Churchill about liberal versus conservative. Traditional conservatives may have been sensible, reasonable, grounded types in the old days, but now they're wacky nutburgers who go around giving speeches about how what we really need is prayer in the schools and cuts to all our social programs. They are utterly without factual support of their positions.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Yes and (with the exception of the old school paleocons and more libertarian leaning conservatives)in many cases worship people who are good at war making. Quotes from people like Churchill certainly helps!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:48 am
"He’s a huge reason why people are taking a second look and wondering why they’re listening to Fox."
I find it doubtful that many Fox fans even watch Jon Stewart, let alone taking a second look.
There seems to be a fairly strong division between the fans of Fox and Daily Show fans. I really doubt that either side is going to persuade the other about anything.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:25 am
There was no cable TV when Churchill was alive. Stop trying to paint everyone with one brush totally ignoring psychology, sociology, cultures, economic differences, human nature and the fact that news and information changes a thousand times faster on a daily basis. During Churchill's time it was the radio or a newspaper and word of mouth. And young people like to watch Jon Stewart because he delivers current events, politics, news, in a satirical and entertaining way. You HAVE TO KNOW what's going on in the world to get it. Not be spoon fed lies and seditionist rhetoric from FIXED NEWS. Owned by a Saudi prince and an Aussie who is married to a Chinese national. That's America's newsroom???
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
And just as importantly, he has much more credibility than FAUX News.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
According to the article, O'Reilly's show gets more viewers than Jon Stewart. So how can he have higher ratings than all of Fox News? The headline itself is BS.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Oh come now, read the article. Stewart averages more than Fox averages
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Then the headline should read: "Jon Stewart has higher ratings than the Fox News average", Not "higher than all of Fox News".
Reading comprehension, logical thought progression - why use them when you get your news from Comedy Central and they just tell you what to think?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
The problem is this. You cannot read the article and comprehend what "Jon Stewart’s Ratings Are Now Higher Than All Of Fox News" means. Please do not complain about it. Have someone tell you what it means
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Math, Reading Comprehension, Logical Though Progression - why use them when you got Fox News to tell you what you should think...then you don't have to worry about the petty facts and details.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
>>This is why Fox News both hates and fears Jon Stewart.<<
Suggestion - if you're going to write articles about this you might try, you know, *watching* the shows you're yapping about. Stewart and O'Reilly appear on each other's shows regularly. The banter between them is intense but also funny and respectful. They *like* each other. In fact, Stewart usually gets two segments on Bill's show. He *very* seldom does that for anyone else. That doesn't sound like hate and fear to me.
So, O'Reilly is the only person on Fox News, he is, in fact, in charge of the entire thing and the one who deals with profit and making money? Interesting theory, speaking of knowing things....
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Bill's show is not Fox News. It is one segment of Fox News. While Bill and Jon appear amiable, that does not represent how Fox feels about itself having lower ratings than Stewart
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
bill has him on for ratings, he knows he's always wrong and will never be considered the victor in their debates.
BILLO, Jon's coming. He's coming to your house. http://bit.ly/CominToYourHouse
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Things are surely moving in the right direction. But every time the Democrats, liberals etc. move a step forward, the other side doubles down and triples down and screams a little louder.
I do have a little trouble with the Democrats, they hardly speak any more or defend themselves any more. What on earth are they afraid of? Is it November 2010?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:40 am
The Democrats aren't afraid of saying anything when they have Jon Stewart to talk for them. And people are listening to him, so no matter how loud the Republicans yell, Stewart will be talking in his even-mannered humorous tone, and people will be listening to him.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Hey, one more thing. If you actually watch Jon Stewart, he pokes fun at a lot more than just Fox (they are the highest rated news network, so they get a lot of hits off them).
So I don't think Fox sees Jon Stewart as their "biggest threat" as the article implies. Believe it or not, there's an awful lot of people who watch BOTH.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Implies? Or you assumes?
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
What FOX news really fears is an educated public.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
What I really fear is people who are educated by a comedy show.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
A comedy show that makes more sense than all 3 netowrks
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Pretty impressive considering a good portion of fox news viewers is military installations, ready rooms, break rooms and ships. Where fox stays on 24/7.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Fox News just isn't funny and people like funny. See? very simple.
Just another part of the reason the Republican party in general is freaking out these days. They are seeing a massive shift in what this country wants and they know they could be on the way out. Rise in minorities is another part of that, with many schools being made up of 30-50% of minorities in a lot of places, and its growing.
And instead of trying to find a better way to play the game, they try to change the rules instead.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
You know, the only reason the media focuses on Fox's blunders and not any other news networks is because they're conservative.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:02 am
A typically conservative knee-jerk response. The 'media' is not a coherent whole and 'it' focuses on nothing but ratings. This article is about The Daily Show. The Daily Show exposes misrepresentations of facts by so-called news organizations across the board. MSNBC and CNN and NBC are targets. Still, since Fox is not a news channel at all, but basically a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party, it gives Stewart far more misrepresentations of facts to work with. When they start telling the truth, they will disappear from The Daily Show's radar.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Fox News will be completely unable to tap the young adult demo. Conservatism is something that comes after becoming old and angry if you're not born into it, and too many of the ones born into it tend to go out into the world around that age to learn about life outside of the trailer. And even then, when we get Fox News-aged I'm guessing what we consider liberal politics now will be the new conservative. I mean, sure politics have been scooching to the right every since the red scare, but once the Fox News generation dies off, I think we'll see a general shift to the left on both sides. You can't stop progress.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
This is by far the lamest comparison ever. I hate fox news as much as the next guy but when you say AVERAGE, it means that you include daytime and primetime #s. John Stewart's show only runs ONCE during primetime, and you even said that O'reilly gets more viewers than stewart!
But what you didn't mention was that FOX news actually has higher ratings than all the other channels! terrible article.
Seriously. If you're going to bash conservatives, be my guest, but at least do it correctly!
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
You certainly do not understand the article. And here you are acting like a 2 year old.
Stewart's 1 hour show averages more viewers in a day than all of Fox news averages in a day.
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Fox News problem is that they are Fox News, a machine telling people how good are Republicans so people keep believing in them, so the 1% of the American people can own more than 90% of AAA-LLLLL-LLLLL the American money.
What is the people going to do when that 1% own 95%?
what when they own 98%?
what when they own 99.5%?
This 1% is addicted to MONEY. Wall Street is addicted to money. Maybe more than drug addicted people are to crack. Markets need to be regulated. Fox News says no. I wonder why.....
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
You do know a real media is supposed to be impartial
Sat, Jun 4th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
So much ranting about Fox News.
Jon Stewart actually respects many aspects of Fox News.
He appears on Oreilly often and engages in respectful debate with him. To those bitching about paying for Fox News on your cable bill, conservatives are stuck paying for MSNBC and other liberal propaganda channels. The only ones bitching about their cable bill are liberals.
Victor the Crab
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Apart from Shep Smith, NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NYAH-NYAHHHHH Fox News!!!!!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Jon Stewart is NOT a news program. It's an entertainment show with a smattering of news. Apples to oranges.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:05 am
Actually, Jon Stewart's viewers are more informed that Fox News viewers according to Pew research studies. O'reilly's viewers fall close behind Stewart, but the rest of the news on Fox is a fail for information.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:58 am
if you found this interesting, i bet you'll like this!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:04 am
So as I understand the Nielson ratings noted, Both O'Reilly and Hannity each had better ratings than the average of all of Comedy Central or CNN or MSNBC or Fox as did John Stewart.
He Just Wrote This
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:54 am
Wait. It meant NOTHING when Fox was beating everything in site. Now it means something that Jon Stewart, a comedian, is getting high ratings?
So which is it? Ratings mean something or they don't?
And ultimately, who cares about Fox or Comedy Central? What is this extrapolation that is giving you tingles?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:47 am
What does this tell you about O'Reilly? He admits it is all about ratings and if selling out America to leftwing media people like Stewart then so be it. Quit watching O' Reilly and watch him do an about face like he has done so often when his ratings start slipping to get viewers back. He is disgraceful and we should shun him like the plague to teach him a lesson on how intelligent we are as to his game. He thinks we are too stupid to know the game he is playing.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:48 am
I don't know i this speaks well of Stewart or only keeps pointing out how bad fox is.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:05 am
So this means what? Let's pick apart some of the other news channel, person by news person. Let's see how much they have gone down in viewers. Stewart is not a news channel, he is comedy.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Stewart is also competing against Conan in the same time slot. So he's beating Fox News, even when much of his potential audience is split between him and O'Brien.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Jon is my main source of News... smile :-)
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Why exactly is this trumpeted as something good? First off, Fox's ratings are higher than all the other news shows/channels combined. So that means that Jon Stewart's ratings are higher than CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC--combined. Congratulations, the bulk of America get their news coverage from a comedy show. I guess we really do get the government we deserve. Let's all celebrate.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Stewart averages more watchers in one hour than Fox does all day. O'Leily gets more viewers, but once you average O'Leily in with the rest of Fox, its a wash. O'Leily himself gets more viewers in One hour than Fox averages in a day as well
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I wonder what are the average daily rating for Comedy Central. After all, if you are going average O'Rielly's veiwers with the rest of Fox, should you not do the same with John Stewart and Comedy Central?
If someone has the numbers, let us know and then we can see who is more popular.
But of course this would not happen as that would once again show how illogical the left is.
It is "NIELSEN" ratings NOT "NIELSON" ratings you Wonderful People. I hope "NIELSEN" sues you.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Makes sense. Stewart's 'fake' news is real, and Fox' 'real' news is fake. People are catching on.
Lynn Marie Firehammer
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Maybe there IS hope for us after all!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Either this article is extremely misleading or I'm missing something.
How can The Daily Show have more total viewers than all of Fox News when later in the article you state that The Factor is the only Fox News show with MORE viewers than the daily show.
The sum of the parts can't be smaller than one of the parts.
Stewart averages more viewers then Fox News averages. O'Leily has more viewers, but when added into the mix of all of Fox News, it averages out to be less than Stewarts
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Oh jon stewart is on got 2 go watch that !
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
thank you! Someone else recognized how misleading the article was.
And, if you want to do a fair statistical comparison, you can't take ONE show and compare it to the average of all shows on another network; you need to average all of comedy central's shows and then compare to all the fox shows, or, all the shows in an identical time period versus each other.
Otherwise, you could take O'Reilly's numbers and average all the viewers over 24 hours of all the ABC stations in the country and then claim O'Reilly has a bigger audience than all of ABC.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@Barkley Pontree "if you want to do a fair statistical comparison, you can’t take ONE show and compare it to the average of all shows on another network"
In one way I would agree with you. However, there is one problem with your comment. Comedy Central is that a comedy channel. The one reason why comparing Jon Stewart to Fox News becomes valid is because (at the front end user level) Jon Stewart's Daily Show IS Comedy Central's news department. So comparing news broadcast to news broadcast IS valid. Also, comparing news broadcasts in the same time-slot is also valid.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
I agree that comparing shows in the same time slot is valid, but that is not what the author did, or may have done with O'Reilly but also was dishonest if he left out the 8pm time slot ratings, which I suspect he did. In other words, comparing O'Reilly at 11 to Stewart at 11 is valid; failing to mention the O'Reilly numbers at 8 Eastern in O'Reilly's totals is not.
And calling The Daily Show a news show is like calling SNL's news cast part of NBC News. It's a comedy show, formatted as a news show, based on events. Don't get me wrong, I like the show, but calling it news is like thinking Gilligan's Island is a show about survival.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I don't think there is a thing misleading about this article. He also did not fail to leave out O'Reilly's numbers...I just read them.
He also is not trying to call the show a serious news show. Why don't you actually read the article before trying to defend Fox News? His whole point is that Fox News has reason to fear John Stewart because he's stealing their viewers, and exposing how skewed their "news" really is. There is NOTHING about Fox News that is "fair and balanced." Only an idiot would think Fox News was real news any more than The Daily Show.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
It's really not fair to compare Stewart to O'Reilly at 11:00 because that's too late for O'Reilly's fans to stay up! ;)
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
"And calling The Daily Show a news show is like calling SNL’s news cast part of NBC News. It’s a comedy show"
Having watched The Daily Show, as well as having watched O'Reilly, and most of the other shows listed in the article, I think it is perfectly valid to lump them together. O'Reilly examines news events of the day and offers opinioned analysis. Same as Stewart. O'Reilly interviews guests of significant political and newsworthy note, so does Stewart. O'Reilly relies heavily on his personality to sway opinions to his thinking. So does Stewart.
Just because one makes you laugh does not decrease the validity. The Fox programs attempt to make people laugh as well, they just fail in that the hosts simply lack Stewart's comedic talents. But to dismiss the validity of his show even though it offers an identical style of "news" simply because it makes you laugh is disingenuous. And you know that. The fact that O'Reilly respects Stewart enough to treat him as a "news" equal, frequently appearing with him (and never dismisses him simply as a comedian) is also important to note.
As a side note, upon review, it would be disingenuous of me to dismiss all of the Fox hosts as unfunny and lump them together as not being comedic. Sure, O'Reilly is not usually humorous, but Glenn Beck is well and truly gifted as a clown.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I learned how to make a functional radio out of starfish, thanks to Gilligan's Island.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:53 am
If that's the case I'm surprised we don't see more Fox News shows on Comedy Central since most of them are a joke.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
It would have helped if they had averaged in Colbert as well, but as someone who works in Media I can tell you that bottom line this is really big for Stewart and bad for Fox. There is no network on earth that wants a program on another network to average (which is what ratings are all about) more viewers than their entire network averages. If the program in question spends a lot of it's time dissecting your network and spitting it out then it is a disaster. Watch over the next few months as Fox undoubtedly pulls out all of the stops to convince its viewers not to watch Stewart.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Are u saying Jon Stewart is a "news" broadcast? Your joking correct?
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I'm saying Jon Stewart's 'The Daily Show', is as much a news broadcast as anything on Fox. Fox disguises slanted news commentary as news reporting, which it is not. News reporters do just that, report the news, they do not try to tell people how to think about they report. Nor do they tell people what the long term outcome of events will be. Every Fox program does both of those things and more. Jon Stewart discusses current events, pointedly satirizing the now typical slanted commentary with which almost all news is now presented. Americans currently get very little true 'news reporting', what we now see can only be described as propaganda broadcasts. Maybe in time Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert can teach people to think for themselves rather than mindlessly absorbing whatever they're told to believe regardless of the direction it is slanted.
A Biker Too
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Gee Crystal, Do you think that Fox News teaches people to think OR do they teach people to "think the way Faux News wants them to.(slanted & skewed)
More than once the "News Broadcasters" of Fox News been CAUGHT in a spewing of obviously false data, facts, & WHATEVER ELSE THEY COULD THROW IN THERE to support their weak (& slanted) point, plus the fact that O'Reilly would just start jabber-jawing over a point a guest was trying to make that Bill DIDN'T happen to like or want his audience to hear, sadly many people are taken in by him & the others there, Beck is slowly self-destructing in a slow & painful dance of death.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
A bunch of whiners in these postings. You all sound like fox news...how sad
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:11 am
fuzzy math aside...i like jon and believe i share his perspectives. watch it, u might like it
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 1:53 am
No, not really fuzzy math. Fuzzy math readers. Take apart what the article says. Jon Stewart has an average number of viewers. Fox News has an average number of viewers. Stewart's average is higher. Among individual shows, only O'Reilly has a higher average than Stewart. But Fox has a higher number of total viewers, because it's on more hours. Stewart's numbers are climbing, Fox News's numbers are declining. All this is good news for Stewart, bad news for Fox News. Interesting factoids, but they don't say much, at least not the things people are describing above. They don't show, especially, that Fox News viewers are moving over to become Stewart viewers. They're just drifting away somewhere, I guess probably to watch the Andy Griffith reruns on the CW.
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 9:00 am
They're dying. That's what happens when you have the oldest demographic in cable.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
The Fox Network actively states that PART of their network is News and PART of their network is Opinion/Commetary. The parts that are labeled as News...Stewart beats. The parts labeled as Opinion/Commentary (Beck, O'Reilly, Greta, Hannity), Stewart beats most of them too.
The fact you did not know O'Reilly was not a news program proves John Stewart's point that Fox deceives its own viewers. Now you know.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Oreilly is opinion/news. Stewart is comedy/left leaning opinion.
ABC/CBS/NBC evening news shows are strictly "news" shows.
Wonder how bad Stewart is beating CNN MSNBC? Funny how that is left out in the article..
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Its pretty widely known Fox beats the rest of the cable news. In fact what you state is obvious to most.
O'leily is right leaning opinion for the most part which is why they go so well togehter
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 12:40 am
Bravo! And remember, any of us can make any stats read ANY way we want them to read. We call it manipulation of data...aka propaganda.
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 12:52 am
You arnt much smarter than he was are you
Wed, Jun 8th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
One is from a "Comedy" channel, the other is part of a news channel. Apples and oranges. Believe me Fox doesn't give a damn about it's rating vs. Dave, Jay or John's shows. They're primary competition is CNN and MSNBC etc. AND throughout the day, show to show, Fox TOTALLY dominates their similarly formatted competition, at least doubling and often as much 4x the second best (CNN). Nice try! lol
Wed, Jun 8th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
You may want to re-read the post. You are missing the point.
Sat, Jun 18th, 2011 at 12:12 am
That threw me at first, also.
I believe the key is the averaging aspect - O'Reilly alone out drew him, but all fox news shows when average together didn't.
Sat, Jun 18th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Yes! You are the first to get it!! There will be a free dinner ticket waiting for you at the door!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Wow, I'm really kind of shocked after reading thru all of these comments and the original article. First, the knowledge of statistics is shockingly low. Here is what is news: Fox News shows all showed a decrease from previous year. Daily Show is showing an increase. That is news and significant. Comparing The Daily Show at 11pm to morning or afternoon shows is like comparing the records of the Red Sox to the Vikings - two different sports people! Different times, different audiences, different and not really a valid statistical comparison.
I watch the Daily Show, most nights it cracks me up. But it is not a "news show", it's a comedy show. And the number of people who responded and blasted Fox News shows as being one sided or having an agenda without recognizing that The Daily Show also has an agenda; nor did we hear any mention of the numbers of CNN or MSNBC. Were their numbers up or down? Did you notice those numbers were missing? If you learned that their numbers were down over 20% to 50%, would that make the article read a little different? Or if their numbers were up? Do you comment makers not think MSNBC or CNN presses an agenda? Just because you might 'agree' with a host or network, doesn't mean 'they' don't have an agenda.
And why did Fox News loose viewers? Were they birthers and tea party viewers who left? Old people that died? Was TV news viewership down across the board? (Yes is the answer).
I like the Daily Show but don't for a moment think John is not pretty liberal in his views; but he will go after the dems and liberals but that doesn't make him and more objective than O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck (whom I never watch).
But really people, be a little more discerning in you viewing and thinking. And take some logic and statistical courses.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Speaking of a shockingly low knowledge of statistics, everything on Fox News is supposed to be, em, NEWS. The Daily Show is a comedy show. It's o.k. for it to have an agenda, be biased, et cetera. It's not presenting itself as journalism in any serious way. Fox, on the other hand, IS. The take-away from this article is that viewers are finally recognizing that they can get more real substance from a comedy show than from Fox's alleged news programming. Which is a powerful and sad statement. For additional information, see the documentary "Outfoxed," which exposes Fox News' biased reporting.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
another wonderful example. I never said Fox News was not biased; my point, which you obviously missed, is all news is biased: Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc. And so is The Daily Show. You can't say it's not biased because it's not a news show then compare it to news stations and say it has more viewers for the news. You are dancing on both sides of the fence.
And, in defense of Fox, two studies were done after the 2008 election and both found Fox to be close to 50/50 on it's positive/negative stories on each candidate. NBC, CNN, ABC were far more biased in coverage towards Obama.
But, in the end, my point is I never said Fox was not biased. And saying I have a low knowledge of stats because Fox is news is a meaningless statement.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Bias does exist everywhere. People interpret events and their meanings differently. What makes Fox stand out is the lack of HONESTY. There is a reason that Fox built it's entire brand not on the notion that they have the correct viewpoint but that you can't trust anyone else. Blind loyalty is vital to their success, since simple fact-checking makes them dismissable.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
blindness is vital to all the networks. People who swear only by Fox News are no different than people who swear by MSNBC or the BBC or Limbaugh or The Times or WND or MoveOn. Often, simple fact checking make them all look foolish.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I'm not arguing any of your, or anyone else's, points except to say that if a study found Fox News to more objective in its coverage of the presidential campaign, then I would HIGHLY doubt that study. I watch a lot of both Fox News and CNN, and Fox News was a neverending attack on Obama throughout the campaign, while CNN just carried various sound bytes from the candidates, nothing I'd consider highly biased either way.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Good for you, John! You should question any study or survey. What is the population, the sample size, the breakdown (for example, how many dems, reps, independents; do they vary week to week, are they representative of reality). Is the data being handed out calculated the same as it use to be.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Barkley, I agree that editors, writers, and announcers at times put their bias on stories that they are covering. That's why you have to take it in with a grain of salt.
I think that Fox News goes a lot further though, they openly create, or re-create stories and statistics; seemingly with the belief that if they repeat it often enough and shout it as loud as possible, it would become truth for all.
Conservative opinions and mine don't see eye to eye on many an occasion, but I am at least willing to listen to them and see if they hold up - and that is a lot more objective than what happens a lot of the time on Fox News. Watch Hannity, O'Reily, and Beck for an example or twenty.
This is why shows like John Stewart's, that analyze the days's news stories (comedy not withstanding) should continue to out perform the kind of shows you see on Fox; and I for one am thrilled about it.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
"two studies were done after the 2008 election and both found Fox to be close to 50/50 on it’s positive/negative stories on each candidate."
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Plenty out there--just google it. Plus another study just showed FOXNews was most trusted. And the breakdown was something like 35% Dems/Repubs and 30% other. No opinion had a higher % than MSNBC! TOOOOO FUNNY
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
There is a link to the numbers of CNN and MSNBC RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE? Here is the link. http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=4564
CNN and MSNBC are both stomping on Fox "News".
Oh, and I have taken logic and statistics. I still say Fox News is a joke compared to any other news source.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Well, call the school and get your money back. Fox News still is out drawing CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time.
Did you look at the source you quote? No. Did you look at the last link, which appears a more objective daily tracking site? No. Because if you had, you would not have made the stomping claim.
Call the school and get your parents money back.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Barkley are you going to go on proving that you have no idea what this article is about?
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Nope, I learned a long time ago that no matter how many facts you use, sometimes you just can't fix stupid
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
"But it is not a “news show”, it’s a comedy show."
That is the largest flaw in your argument. Stewart's show is nearly identical to O'Reilly's show in that they both offer analysis and dissection of important and newsworthy events. Both hosts interview important figures in the literary, cultural and political arena. Both hosts use their personalities to sway opinion. The way they format their shows- opening monologue, news recap, in-depth story, interview, is also nearly identical. That one is more gifted in comedy does not preclude it from being any more or less "news."
The analysis on Stewart's show is easily equal to that of O'Reilly's show. The interviews are just as hard hitting, with Stewart often putting his guests on a very no-holds barred hot-seat. His complete dismantling and humbling of CNBC's Jim Cramer was absolutely legendary. And when it comes to significant exposes, it could be argued that Stewart is well in the win column over O'Reilly.The very fact that O'Reilly never, ever dismisses Stewart as simply "a comedian" and treats him as a news equal in their head-to-heads should lend weight enough to the validity of The Daily Show as being every bit the news show as O'Reilly. And if you really try to say Glenn Beck, with his Nazi chalkboard diagrams and his ridiculous hysterical rants is more of a "news" show than Stewart's, then you are simply being disingenuous.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Jon isn't liberal, he's moderate. The vast majority of news organizations are moderate. Don't buy into the fallacy of "The Liberal Media", it's just propaganda from the very real "Conservative Media". As well, the Daily Show is more than a comedy show. It's primarily commentary presented in a comedic fashion. Most of Fox is commentary also..disguised as news.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
This just goes to show how stupid and INEPT the American people are. Keep believing these clowns. When America's economy collapses, turning it into a third world nation, China will be the one who has the last laugh.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Do you think it could mean that they know what Fox News is, and between the 2 comedy shows they like Stewarts best?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
When will people like you stop screaming the end of america....your so quick to to destroy something instead of being a solution. Economies go up and down all the time and history shows this but whether we are the top world power or china DOESNT MATTER...we will NOT be a third world country and life will go on. If everyone hates how things are here in america so BAD then why dont you stop complaining and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. We the people have the power as we are the ones who put those in the white house where they are.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
study history, economies can go down and not come up. Think about this. $1 per second and in about 12 days you have a million bucks. In about 32 years, you would have a billion. And in 32,000 years you get to a trillion. Now figure out 14 trillion dollars in debt.
The rising prices you are finding right now have everything to do with the printing and printing of new dollars, which only have value because we agree they have value. When the agreement ends, it's just paper.
We've been very kind over the years forgiving other countries their debts; I doubt very much the rest of the planet will be so forgiving towards us.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Yeah i know all about that man...Economies do go up and down. They change yes but they dont say in the dumps forever. Ever since the first depression we didnt stay in a depression ever since, where its always hard finding work, housing prices are so low and credit hard to get. It constantly changes going up and down...sometimes the "value" of the dollar is alot and other times not so much...granted its no longer backed in gold but thats not the point. Point is YES it changes and goes back and forth from bad to good always. Your right we have been very gracious to other countries and always there to help them out and i also doubt they would do the same.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
yes, the world is shit, jon stewart is an asshole for going after fox news, and nobody in the world has any knowledge of statistics or is as smart and amazing as you are. now, go away!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
wow, ouch! How can I possibly argue against such a well formed logical factual retort! How will I sleep tonite?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Oh yes that so hurts our feelings.....=oP
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Maybe you should read more. Last month, George Soros funded an international financial composium, attended by the IMF. Soros is on record as wanting to remove the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. When that happens, not if, the US dollar will collapse.
Meanwhile, China is taking action, and holds most of our debt. They are also teaching their student English, many are fluent by age 10.
Just because you cannot see the handwriting on wall doesn't man it isn't there.
The masses are easily led, evidenced by the 2008 election.
We will get what we are asking for, and it will take many by surprise. I recommend you begin preparing.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Ok lets see the link to what you say Soros did
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 4:27 am
((( "Soros is on record as wanting to remove the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. When that happens, not if, the US dollar will collapse." )))
The Republicans in Congress have nearly universally decided to vote against raising the debt ceiling, despite having voted to raise it eight times during Bush's two terms. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the U.S. will default on its debts, and the dollar will almost instantaneously be replaced by the Euro or Renminbi as the world's dominant reserve currency.
While you're busy fretting over the ethereal threat of some George Soros symposium, the very real possibility exists that the U.S. dollar will collapse this August as a result of Washington conservatives who want nothing more for this country than economic armageddon, so that they can blame President Obama for its downfall. So here's my question:
Does the Republicans' vow to vote against raising the debt ceiling enrage you as much as George Soros' symposium does? If not, why not?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Didn't your people learn better during the failed "rapture" crap about making vague doomsday predictions? LOL, our economy already collapsed. And we didn't even drop to 2nd world nation status.
Drop the doom, and follow the money, buddy.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Why do you care is the economy collapses? Aren't you getting raptured up to Heaven any day now? The minor material concerns of this existent should be irrelevant to you if you are a believer.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
It is true: Figures don't lie....but Liars can sure figure!
fox news is winey news
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I'll watch Jon Stewart again and again and again and again, unless I want to consume wine at nauseum- Fox winey News that is. No news is good news especially when it is overly-processed Fox winey News. I'll gladly enjoy me' some fresh news perspectives on the Daily Show.
Don't just sit there scratching your head, get yourself some Daily Show at 11pm.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Daily and Colbert ROCK the HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:54 am
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Interesting article demonstrating just how ignorant the American masses have become over the years. A comedy show is considered a valid source for news. Fox News is less bias than any other American news source.
How long before our President is a pro-wrestler? Idiocracy is reality. Stop blaming the politicians for our problems, the bulk of the American people are blathering idiots, especially the "younger hip-hop braindead generation" those with any brains are fed up and tired. The people are the cause of American's many problems the politicians are only a symptom.
America is collapsing under its internal weight of stupidity and cheeseburgers.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
"Interesting article demonstrating just how ignorant the American masses have become over the years. A comedy show is considered a valid source for news. Fox News is less bias than any other American news source."
Not according to Indiana University. Here is a study I would like to track down the original copy to:
The headline for this article is:
"It's no joke: IU study finds The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to be as substantive as network news"
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 9:18 am
America is collapsing under the internal weight of morons like yourself who keep voting against their own economic interests ....
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I'm glad I read the comments. This isn't an accurate comparison. The Daily Show exposes Fox News (I throw up in my mouth a little every time I put those two words together) but doesn't compete with it. While it seems inconceivable that anyone at Fox seriously takes what they do as 'journalism', they try to make their viewers believe that. TDS not only trumpets the fact that they AREN'T doing real journalism, they point out that Fox, CNN, MSNBC et al aren't, either. It would be like comparing Rotten Tomatoes to a movie studio. Fox creates fantasy; TDS reviews it.
And Dancing With the Stars destroys Mr. Stewart...so what?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Bully for John! Shows that, in the end, laughter beats HATE and PARANOIA any day! Keep up the great comedy John, you're changing AMERICA!! :—)
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
He should be on prime-time!
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
It would be real interesting to see those numbers drilled down to see how many are voters
I think Stewart's not a comedian as much as he is a modern satirist. He often uses ridicule,irony and sarcasm to get his point across and he does so effectively and amusingly. I think Cobert falls in this same category. I don't think either specifically target Fox but it's such an easy target it has to be hard to resist.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Well, what a good little Obamaite Stewart has turned into.
The administration had declared war on Fox News, but that backfired on them. With the whole of the MSM and entertainment industry at Obama's disposal, the tactics have changed, but the war rages on.
When will We the People finally use our brains to ask why Obama is so threatened by one media outlet, and why he is so focused on bringing it down?
People, we should be rallying to defend the one outlet that isn't in the tank for Obama, instead of cheering the haters of free speech on.
I'm afraid we're going to get what we deserve here; a state controlled media.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
LOL, a state controlled media? Which silly group do you belong to that came up with that one?
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
More like a corporate-controlled state, one of whose branches is the media.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:09 am
Good point! Take NBC, owned by GE. How many billions in defense, energy, and Amtrak turbine contracts did they get after being the arm of the Obama propaganda machine?
When media is owned by large corps that stand to make billions in government biz, the truth is sold.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:22 am
GE is one of the biggest corporations in the world. Get a grip on yourself. GE made nothing from Obama
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Our govt is too broke to run anything, not alone a media outlet.
No, it isnt. But the republicans want it that way
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Apparently, statistics and satire are both incredibly misunderstood by many of the commenters here.
Sun, Jun 5th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
And you were about to enlighten us?
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 12:51 am
Jon Stewart ROCKS!!!!!! Keep up the good work! You are THE BEST! If you keep exposing those guys at FOX maybe someday this country will be really better!!!
You and Colbert are doing an excellent work! Keep it up please!
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:25 am
The Fox News viewers have a higher percentage of voting than the Comedy Central viewers. In the end, that's what counts.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:28 am
There's a big difference between news and news commentary. We loosely refer to a lot of Fox and MSNBC programing as news, but they are news commentary, not intended to be straight news. And by nature, they will have a bias, even a strong bias, because it's all about the commentator's opinion. I see many of them refer to themselves as journalists, which may or may not be the case. I think it should be evident to viewers, what is news and what is commentary, but it's not. If it has the word "news" after it, it should be straight news. (NBC Nightly News) If it has "show" after it, it's a show - commentary/entertainment. Beck, O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart all have "shows." You watch and get another perspective on the news. I think it's helpful to get a journalist's perspective - as long as they're basing their opinions on actual facts. Jon Stewart brings satire to the table, which offers up a fresh way of looking at the absurdity of what goes on in politics.
But even straight news has a slant. I often will read a news story on MSNBC.com, then go over to foxnews.com to see how they cover the same story. They are often nearly identical, showing they were supplied by AP or some other service. Most recently, I did the double check when Donald Trump decided not to run for president. MSNBC sited possible reasons that he decided not to run, including several bankruptcies and theorized that he may not want to disclose all his financial dealings to the public, which he'd have to do to run. FOX covered the announcement as if a great man had bowed out most honorably. There was no mention of anything negative in his background. Both were factual, far as I know, but because MSNBC doesn't like him, it brought up negatives about him, while Fox left all those facts out. If you didn't know anything about the Don, and read only MSNBC, you'd think he was a crook. If you only read Fox, you'd think he was a saint.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 8:46 am
not to mention, the daily show has a much higher online viewership as well!
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
FOX News designed to help corporations and wealthy people prosper, go to FOX News. When you want a bit more balanced approach go anywhere else. Some time we wonder about our young folks and if they are paying attention. It seems if they are rejecting FOX News there is hope that the people of America will one day take our country back from corporate America (Big oil, pharma, insurnace...)intent on crushing the middle class.
Now if we can only get all the old frightened geezers to tune out FOX and vote in their own interests, not the interests of the oligarchy, we might really have something!
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
The most important fact you need to know is that O"Reilly covered the war on Christmas, when no other prominent commentator would. He covered an event that didn't happen.I wouldn't call that news. I believe there is another name for what O'Reilly does.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Hey now in all fairness Colbert also covers the war on Christmas. Take that however you will.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
So there's hope for America after all.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Yes Fox News audience is older...... and wiser.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I agre. Thats why Fox is losing veiwers. they are wising up
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Fox News and Comedy Central. Is there a difference?
I get a HUGE chuckle when I watch either of them.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Interesting how off-base the comments got. It's not unfair to compare Jon Stewart's ratings to shows on Fox News. Though the name "news" is in the name of the channel, hosts such as Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck will argue that they are simply entertainers, not news reporters. Such a stance can give them the ability to talk about whatever they want, and most choose to talk about their opinions. They're not news programs, so they don't have to have traceable sources for their opinions, or even any source at all.
The Daily Show is also an entertainment program, though of late it has been uncovering fallacies in the sources of Fox News' programs while also mocking the style of them (notably The Glenn Beck Show). The trouble is that Fox News' programs are on a network with "News" in the name, and therefore, considered creditable sources of information among a certain percentage of the population. No one on the network is willing to dissuade that unless challenged directly, for fear of a drop in ratings. If challenged directly, again, the host in question would dismissively respond that he (or she) is just an entertainer.
What is addressed in this article is a drop in ratings of Fox News programs, though, in comparison to the Daily Show. As across the board, the programs compared are "entertainment programs," it's not an unfair comparison. Also, the statistics are not invalid, as Stewart's amount of viewers is compared directly to that of popular shows on Fox News. The title might be misleading, as the O'Reilly Factor's prime-time showing has more viewers than the Daily Show.
Of course, what most of the comments address is the implied meaning behind that. Perhaps the viewing public is mentally dropping "News" from the "Fox News" network, thereby discrediting the source of information. Or perhaps everyone is getting older since Jon Stewart began his tenure as host of the Daily Show. Perhaps people are just growing tired of the popular shows on Fox News. The trouble with statistics is that they are simply numbers. The people using the statistics can draw their own conclusions about the implications. Sometimes they are easy to draw, other times they aren't. With things such as tv programs in general, the question of why someone favors one program over another is up to the interpreter, and answers will vary widely.
With the inherent bias of all things political (political things are biased one way or another, and never neutral), this leads people to go from their political bias, using finger-pointing and blaming, keeping the terms "liberal" and "conservative" merely hinted at but rarely mentioned for fear of disrupting the diplomatic nature of argument, as both terms conjure unpleasant thoughts in the minds of members of each group--though the bias is still there. Considering the ease of offending a commenter on a message board, a lot of the commenters here have felt it necessary to let loose the derogatory opinions they have of each other, while some have felt free to throw around misconceptions about the article.
The trick is to put your own political beliefs out of your mind for a while. Forget your own opinions and read the article. What is said in the article doesn't mean anything that anyone holds dear is doomed forever. Any victory or failure is very limited here, and really it's out of the hands of the audience. The main purpose put forth by a TV network, or anyone who is behind a TV program such as the ones mentioned in this article, is to attract viewers. In other words, the host or the writing team are at the steering wheel, and the viewers are passengers. Or, possibly, they are the sheepdogs and the audience the flock. That depends on how you choose to describe it. The navigator will be the network, though (or the shepherd in the latter description).
Viewers mean more advertisers. Advertisers mean money. Money means financial success of the network and the hosts. Financial success is funnelled into marketing of the show, which gets more viewers, more advertisers and more money. So probably all this means is, Jon Stewart will continue doing what he's doing, since it's successful. The popular programs on Fox News will find something else to do with their shows, to keep or build an audience.
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
If Fox News has higher ratings than the other news networks and cable channels, doesn't that mean that Stewart also blows them away?
Mon, Jun 6th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Jon Stewart's show has a higher average viewing audience then Fox news has an average viewing audience all day.
If Fox news has a higher average viewing audience all day then other cable channels that yes John Stuart has a higher average viewing audience that they do.
However, I do not believe, and I don't have the data that John Stewart has a higher daily average viewership then the three networks
but let's are also remember that SpongeBob blows Bill O'Reilly and Fox news away as well
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 2:41 am
The news outlets in the US are all biased. Personally I dislike O'Riley, Beck, and especially that idiot Hannity, but they don't claim to be news. Those of you who claim to have "fact checked" the hard news shows(Smith, Bair)in the afternoon make me wonder what source of wisdom you are using. But using your instead of you are and dragging in tired hippie fears (big oil, and other evil corporations) give me a hint about the people commenting. PS if you have a retirement plan where you work, you are probably in BIG OIL,
Tue, Jun 7th, 2011 at 4:59 am
I think everyone is hung up on the word "news." The Daily Show is not a news broadcast like the evening news, neither is The Factor. They are political commentary. Both shows. While the shows have vastly differing agendas, they both provide points of view. As far as the numbers go, for every show on television, it's all about the ratings. What the article really points out is trend. The Daily Show trend is on the raise, while Fox News (as a whole) seems to have peaked about two years ago and is starting to slide.
Wed, Jun 8th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
I've worked in both the broadcast news as well as broadcast advertising business with my college major being broadcast journalism.
Believe me, Fox News does NOT compete with Jon Stewart in the ratings game. Fox competes for the advertising dollars against other cable news organizations, and not against Entertainment/Comedy shows. Same goes for the network news shows as well, all of which probably have less viewers than Stewart or any of the other late night comedy shows.
In it's category Fox competes with other cable news shows and totally dominates EVERY time period throughout the day as the link below shows. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, Greta Susteren, even Fox and Friends ALL have audiences at least twice as large -- OR as much as four-times as large -- as second place CNN in EVERY time slot! No one in the news business gives a damn about Dave's, Jay's or John Stewart's ratings. It's apples and oranges.
Thu, Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
It's reassuring when Jon Stuart satirizes and exposes the extreme right news. It is so beyond comprehension that they continue to even exist; who do they even appeal to anyway? Luckily, ignorance is slowly disappearing along with the bitter, rasist, geriatric ramblings of old men that are fox news.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 1:18 am
If Jon Stewart is teaching audiences how to watch the News, then why isn't he being more proactive in pointing out who is delivery good news? The American people run this country, well suppose to according to the Declaration of Independence, so why isn't he delivery the outcome that will solve the people's problems by leading them on what to do. He makes people laugh at all the overwhelm in life, which is really nice cause he sure is funny. In the end though it just adds to the clutter rather than making life better.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 6:15 am
Ermm - I do hope all Americans realise that the rest of the world is cyring laughing at anyone who is gullable enough to be taken in by Fox "news". You have the highest internet connection rate in the world - use it people! Search world news (NOT just CNN). Get other people's perspectives. Challenge what you hear. Shame for anyone taken in unless it's just for tabloid enjoyment (which is fun but who believes the Nat Enquirer). That's all that Murdoch is about. He doesn't care about religion, he cares about money. Whatever makes a profit. He's cashing in on you guys.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 10:17 am
If you change the headline to 'Jon Stewart’s Ratings Are Now Higher Than EACH Of Fox News' shows' then I think it is less misleading and NO LESS AWESOME!
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Will you all please start putting your commas and periods inside of your quotation marks? I'm begging you, each and every one? And, for the love of all that is holy, could you not use them when unnecessary? (For a good chuckle on that subject, I recommend The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com.) It makes reading the comments unbearable.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:05 am
"could you not use them when unnecessary?"
Could you please take grammar lessons? For the lose of all that is holy I hate having to read a sentence 50 times to understand it
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Please do not use quotation marks when they are not required.
Is that better? I do not need grammar lessons, but thank you.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 11:43 am
"I’m begging you, each and every one?"
Oops! I meant for that question mark to be a period, obviously. I guess I got too worked up about poor punctuation I forgot to pay attention to my own!
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
This is an apples and oranges -- or apples and wildebeests -- comparison. Jon Stewart is a clown -- a very funny clown -- and Fox News is a conservative news and commentary counterweight to such liberal media as NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., etc.
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Actually Stewart gives his take on the news ina funny way, that ultimatly makes far more sense than the news you get from others.
NPR is not liberal. And if the others are liberal, why do they spend more time on conservatives news?
Thu, Jun 16th, 2011 at 12:36 am
Jon Stewart Rules
Fri, Jun 10th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Does anyone else find this article to be a bit of a relief? In general FOX news only makes me nervous because I know that people are watching it. It still makes me a little nervous that O'Reilly has more overall viewers than Stewart... but at least he's beating out those other jackasses.
Sun, Jun 12th, 2011 at 1:54 am
Walter Cronkite is dead and so is factual reporting. Every news program has an agenda, both left and right. There is probably more truth in Jon Stewart than any news network.
Sat, Jun 18th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Fox is not a news network..Only opinions just as Stewart has opinions ..So JOhn beat fox on rating ..Should not be hard to do..Fox is nothing but propaganda for the right and never say anything good about Democrats..Have you ever seen any current GOP presidential candidate appear on any other show but fox..NO you have not ..Palin,Bachman only go on fox to get softball questions
Sat, Jun 18th, 2011 at 10:39 am
I think the comparison is valid, I saw no subterfuge here or anything misleading. Jon Stewart now averages more viewers than Fox News. Period. He does. Didn't say he had higher ratings than all of them. Pointed out that O'Reilly was higher, and gave the number of viewers. How can anyone think this is in any way misleading when the author laid it all out? It seems to me hard line conservative talk is trending aggressively downward in general. The loss of ratings on Fox is mirroring the downward spiral of conservative AM talk, and major markets are dropping the the nationally syndicated guys in favor of more toned-down local guys. Personally, I don't see how (or why) anyone can stand to listen to an angry "republicans are always in the right, democrats are always wrong" partisan hack like "Sean Hannity" (pick one) or take anything someone like this ever says seriously, and he - and his ilk, certainly are never funny or entertaining... just constant bitching and bitterness. Who wants to listen to that all the time? Surprised it took so long. Also, a possibility could be Glenn Beck. Beck - as any fool can plainly see, is either a huckster or a nut or both. You used to have to wait until 2:00am and point your AM radio antenna in a very specific direction to hear a static-y rant by some loon like this back in the day. Fox gave him a prime time show. Perhaps Beck was given too high a profile, and he cast a pall over the entire conservative media. Not married to this notion, but it's a possibility.
Blog advertising is good for you.