→ Media
Cable News
| Tue Oct. 13, 2009 7:47 AM PDT
I remember the first time I happened to read an article about the size of the audience for cable news. It was years ago, and at first I thought I was reading it wrong. Were the numbers in millions? Or indexed in some weird way I didn't understand? But no. The audience for cable news throughout the day tends to be in the hundreds of thousands. In other words, maybe 1% of the country on a good day. Matt Yglesias comments:
The three networks combined have an aggregate daytime audience of roughly zero. But even though the audience, looked at nationally, amounts to rounding error the networks are hugely popular among the tiny number of people who work in professional politics.
Just like traders have CNBC and Bloomberg on in their offices, political operatives are constantly tuned in to what’s happening on cable news. The result is a really bizarre hothouse scenario in which people are basically watching . . . well . . . nothing, but they’re riveted to it. How things “play” on cable news is considered fairly important even though no persuadable voters are watching it. And cable news’ hyper-agitated style starts to infect everyone’s frame of mind, making it extremely difficult for everyone to forget that the networks have huge incentives to massively and systematically overstate the significance of everything that happens.
I guess I'm lucky in a way. I find TV so distracting that I can't really write when it's on. So, since I write for a living, that means I never have it on. It helps keep my blood pressure — well, not low, exactly, but at least I'm not having hourly seizures.
On the other hand, it also warps my view of the political world. An awful lot of the frenzy in politics is driven by cable news, and I hardly ever see it. My view of the world is driven mostly by reading the mainstream print press and partly by reading blogs. And while the blogosphere is doing its best to evolve into a written version of cable news, it's not quite there yet. So on a day-to-day basis, things actually seem calmer and more sober to me than they really are.
I'm not sure what to do about that. Probably nothing. In a way, I'm missing out, but in another way, my view of the world is actually closer to that of ordinary people, who aren't immersed in this hothouse and have no idea that most of the micro-frenzies we write about every day have even happened. But it's worth noting that this is something that makes politics even more inscrutable to most people than it should be even on its own merits. Things happen that make no sense, and the reason they make no sense is because the driving force behind them is some passing daily outrage that no one except Wolf Blitzer and Sean Hannity and their few thousand viewers care about. Unless you're one of those few thousand — and very few of us are — you'll be forever perplexed. This is, needless to day, probably not a great idea in a liberal democracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
I need to remember this...
Submitted by LADave on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:18 AM PDT.
I keep forgetting this. I work alone in my studio with breaks to read blogs and such. I read about the outrage of the day and think that this somehow translates to massive movement in the opinion of the general population. So i then get worked up about it and it affects my whole day. So the answer is to not get so involved and probably drink less coffee. Thanks for the reminder.
The MSM
Submitted by Patrick O'Grady (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:23 AM PDT.
I spent about 15 years as a newspaperman and never let a day go by without reading several papers, with one eye on the TV news and an ear turned to NPR. Eighteen years after abandoning that sinking ship, I no longer subscribe to the local daily (foaming neolibertards from Orange County) or to cable TV (bad noise with unpleasant faces attached), though I still listen to and support the local NPR affiliate. Mostly I get my news online from a variety of sources, among them strong national and regional newspapers and blogs.
I, too, feel as though I'm missing something — and frankly, I'm glad of it. The inmates have been running the MSM asylum for quite some time now, particularly where cable TV is concerned. A guy can see crazy people shouting at themselves on any major-metro street corner, and for free, too.
Assignment desks
Submitted by SteveHigh on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:37 AM PDT.
Unfortunately, among that tiny audience are assignment editors and news directors from networks and major newspapers who scramble to compete.
I look at network morning news shows to see how things are playing out in Peoria, but mostly I watch World Series of Poker. Those buggers should be campaign consultants.
russian dating now this
Submitted by compiknews on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 2:41 PM PST.
russian dating now this appearance became more and more distributed. Many foreign rich men wish to get married on an common Russian or Ukrainian woman. Why do alien millionaires want to live only with Russian lady? All over the world there are many beautiful ladies, so why do they select only Russians? No one knows answer for this important russian dating and joyful question, but this note can show you a little truth. What do you think about Russian and Ukrainian ladies. Let me tell you. They are beautiful beautiful, kind, cheerful, funny and clever. Many them are very smart, but they choose a joyful family against their russian dating profession. Most of them wish to get married on a nice person and to raise a kid. They love their parents, they will help everybody who need them. In a dialog with common Russian or Ukrainian lady you will find many good feelings. russian dating Conversation with them is funnyly and simple. russian dating Russian or Ukrainian girl are fond of cooking, their delicatessens are really tasty. russian dating Russian lady will wait you after your work with russian dating your child, she will love you. She will do all flat housecleaning while you are at work, she would take care of your kid; family life with her will be like a fairy. Look russian dating at ordinary American russian dating woman and tell me her good russian dating characterizations. I think that you won't russian dating find them. American women are lazy and rude. They are fond of beer, cigarettes, russian dating simple stupid series on the TV and they prefer to discuss them with their girls. It isn't interesting to talk and live with them, they can't grow a kid. That's why really clever men don't want to get russian dating married on them. Russian or Ukrainian ladies are much better then American. So if you want to start a really good family life with really good lady, the best method for you is to find a woman in Russia or Ukraine. Nowadays there are lots of ways of dating in the web, so prospecting of Russian or Ukrainian girl will be really simple for you. russian dating
Ungrateful lout...
Submitted by Sam Gamgee (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:49 AM PDT.
Why sir, your criticisms of Cable News is nothing but a shot across the bow of the Free Market. How can you find fault with something that the Free Market spawns and has little Govt involvement.
By default Cable News is at it's optimum benefit to society and its marketplace, for it has no scurrilous Govt meddling. There can be no downside from its current presentation.
[;-)
I stopped watching CNN...
Submitted by bcamarda (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:55 AM PDT.
...when I realized it was making me stupider.
CNN
Submitted by R D Meek Jr (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 3:07 AM PDT.
The essence of CNN's "new for the day" can, sadly, be distilled from the first 10 minutes on the hour, every hour, which they then try to "expound on" for the remainder of said hour, only to repeat themselves yet again, hourly. Such is neither news nor edification, but rather A/V "tabloid" style sensationalism. Ditto FOX, etc.
Non-media cable news viewers
Submitted by Gene Ha on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:04 AM PDT.
Slightly an aside, but it's worth remembering who the average non-media viewer is:
“Among ad-supported cable nets, the news nets … sport the most gray, with Fox News Channel’s daytime and primetime skeds the absolute oldest, clocking in with a median age above 65.” - Variety (via www.pensitoreview.com)
One needs only watch the ads to see that. I'm 40, and the drug ads rarely apply to my demographic. The two most conservative generations are mine (35-50 years old) and 65-75 years old [http://is.gd/4hIj4/538]. Let's see how Fox News does as the current group of retirees dwindles and new liberal Baby Boomer retirees start watching daytime cable news.
"So on a day-to-day basis,
Submitted by Sebastian H (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:05 AM PDT.
"So on a day-to-day basis, things actually seem calmer and more sober to me than they really are."
Isn't it really that things seem as calm and sober as they really are, except to the nearly zero people watching cable news? The problem is that editors, politicians and political junkies are watching. We need to remind them that it isn't real.
Brilliant, Sam Gamgee!
Submitted by Detroit Dan on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:14 AM PDT.
Also, let us not forget that more people watch the evening cable news, and that counts too...
Don't they know about microphones?
Submitted by thersites on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:35 AM PDT.
I stopped watching cable news -- even those shows whose biases I tend to agree with -- because I got tired of people yelling at me all the time.
I remember when "Headline News" was a sober-looking individual calmly, um, reading the headlines. Not Edward R. Murrow stuff, exactly, but still... WTF happened?
Order of magnitude error
Submitted by Jim Lund (not verified) on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 9:59 AM PDT.
Kevin, your estimate is off by a factor of 10. It is 0.1% of people watching, 300,000 / 300 million = 0.1%.
I used to leave it on all day while I was doing chores. That was back when you were Calpundit, too.
But the things that were reported became less and less relevant, they'd have more Lou Dobbs and less investigative reported talking to various politicos.
So I turned it off. Why listen to something that's just going to have you yelling at the
news anchors' that they're lying or slanting what they're reporting to not actually give credence to facts over opinion?
Things are, I would say,
Submitted by MaynardHandley on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 12:30 PM PDT.
Things are, I would say, somewhat worse that you make them out to be.
It's a good thing that most people have the sense to ignore cable TV news. (If they had more sense, they would also ignore local and network TV news, but that's a separate issue.)
What's not a good thing is that I would say the basic US vibe is that "you" "should" be watching cable news, in the same way that "you" "should" be watching foreign movies and documentaries and PBS. This belief is the only reason I can think of for why one finds crap like CNN on public TVs all over America --- in restaurants, airports, waiting offices, government buildings. I find it hard to believe that, to the extent that the public asked for TV, they asked for that rather than sports or soaps or religion. I suspect that CNN (or occasionally FOX or MSNBC) is being forced on the public because of a general belief that it is "educational" and the sort of thing that informed citizens should be watching.
If we are to combat its baleful influence, this attitude is the place to start. When anyone speaks up in this vain "Oh, I never watch TV, except CNN of course", don't let them win points for what sophisticated intelligent people they are. Fix them slowly with your eyes and ask, as scornfully as possible, "CNN??? TV News??? Are you deliberately trying to turn yourself into a moron?"
Funny you should mention restaurants
Submitted by Trippp on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 5:36 PM PDT.
One of our local McDonalds installed LCD TVs on the wall by the booths, with the channel set to Fox news, the volume up high, and the controls were locked - you couldn't change channels or adjust the volume or even turn the darn thing off.
I unplugged the darn thing but then I wrote a complaint to McDonalds corporate, which is usually very receptive to customer feedback. Corporate was nice as pie, but the local guy was bristly and told me they lock the controls so people don't mess with the TVs and they get Fox because it is cheap and if I don't like it I should find a manager to unplug it. Corporate followed up and I told them I was not satisfied with the answer and they said they would refer it to the regional manager. The TVs are still there and I never heard back.
Fine with me. I take my business elsewhere. Funny thing is in my comment I said I did not like to eat with the TV on and the local guy assumed I was some cranky liberal, which I suppose I am, but I don't like any TV when I am eating. Except for watching the Vikings at a sports bar.
you know what beats glenn beck & sean hannity? baseball playoffs, by 100,000 viewers minimum, up to 1 mill more. and you know what almost ties with those guys (w/ about 100,000 fewer viewers)? monk, ncis and spongebob.
Dropped our cable
Submitted by jimBOB on Tue Oct. 13, 2009 8:54 PM PDT.
A couple of years ago we dropped our cable TV, so I can't watch cable news even if I wanted to. Don't miss it at all. Between DVD's and file sharing networks I can generally see anything I like, usually without commercials.
I heartily recommend dropping cable/satellite to anyone who finds cable news annoying. Plus, by pulling the plug you no longer will be sending a monthly offering to Rupert Murdoch.
News
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 7:39 AM PDT.
I would hope that you are supporting newspapers and magazines with good quality reporting through purchasing and subscription.
TV News: the best presentation, the most accurate reporting:
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 5:16 AM PDT.
In no particular order:
Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert. Seriously, in a comedic way. Thankfully, their skewers of the Obama Administration are every bit as sharp (if not as opportunistically numerous) as they were during the Bush Administration. Plus their news analysis mockery over time has proven not only hilarious but remarkably more accurate than their serious news competition. And they have accomplished all this with considerably less access.
Online: Christian Science Monitor, Voice of America, MJ, al Jazeera, BBC, NYT.
AFAIK, there is no Rupert Murdoch news reporting property worthy of the name. Even the WSJ is suspect. Murdoch's news media empire is a credibility black hole. The neurotics and hysterics promoted by Murdoch as news personalities are real-life cartoons. When Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are long gone, their names will live on among such luminaries as Homer Simpson, Popeye and Bugs Bunny. Unfortunately, that seems to be the common aspirational pinnacle shared by Murdoch's televised divas.
I'm Right in Line with You.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Oct. 14, 2009 8:54 AM PDT.
I watched some cable news during the election season last year. This habit tapered off steadily in the weeks that followed. For the past six months or so I have rarely turned on my TV, let alone to CNN (yawn), MSNBC (shrill), Fox (lulz), or any other news network.
If I feel like =watching= something, I can do so anytime online on host sites (TDS, Colbert), YouTube (al-Jazeera, Current), or even iTunes podcasts (esp. NPR & iTunes U). Some of the world's best news sources (in audio or video or written, take your pick) are ONLINE FOR FREE... NY Times, Economist newsletters, GoogleNews aggregate, al-Jazeera, BBC, & so on. Blogs (by people with sense) are a good spice in the mix - I'm a big fan of Paul Krugman's, for example.
Everything seemed so important when I watched cable news regularly. A week didn't go by without some momentous success by someone or tremendous injustice by another. But with some hindsight it seems like white noise. My roommate continues to watch cable news on a weekly basis, but it usually amounts to boiling blood & contempt for the latest jerk.
Don't give others the power to "inform" you, just do it yourself.
Free at Last
Submitted by Judy on Thu Oct. 15, 2009 9:28 AM PDT.
Tired of Talking Points
I was addicted to cable. Couldn't get enough of Rachel. Waited breathlessly to see how my favorite pundits would weigh in on the subject of the day. And then one miraculously self-disciplined day, I turned it off. What a difference. No more long-suffering hosts waiting for guests to finish their opening salvo of thirty-second sound bites of well rehearsed talking points. No more hatred spewing 24/7 from polarizing points of view. What a difference!
There is a typological error
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Oct. 30, 2009 11:16 AM PDT.
There is a typological error at the end of your interesting and otherwise well-written article wherein you typed "needless to day" rather than your assumed intended "needless to say".
You can pretty much get the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 1, 2009 1:18 PM PST.
You can pretty much get the full gist of whatever hobby horse cable news is riding on a given day by watching the first 15 minutes at the top of the hour.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
