PDA

View Full Version : KO's new show is...



Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 09:04 PM
Basically exactly like his old show.

He either always owned the name, or got it released to him as part of his severance agreement.

So it starts with the old NBC classical piece that began his show before, he flips up a 5 person montage, and intones, WHICH of these stories, etc.

Two differences I noted: 1) Craig Crawford joined him. Craig is a real journalist, and he had complained and dropped out of the MSNBC stable of commentators some time back when he charged he was being brought on to repeat the attack sound bites approved by the networks and hosts. Considering KO was one of the worst offenders if that bothers you, not sure how he squares going on KO's show when he wouldn't do MSNBC generally. Interesting.

2) He had Markos Moulitas on, the founder of the Daily Kos. Moulitas had been effectively banned from MSNBC at Joe Scarborough's demand, is the story I've read, after Moulitas taunted him in print that maybe somebody ought to mention the name of "x," (the name of the young intern found dead in his Florida offices, no disrespect meant to her but I just don't remember the name), after her being found dead and then having the disgraced corrupt medical examiner they brought in to handle this case, led to the near-immediate resignation of the just-elected Rep. Scarborough, prior to his getting this show.

Worst persons is still a feature, as is Fridays with Thurber (I always delete the show when that comes on at its end, as I just don't find Thurber that funny as read by KO).

No smashing of windows that I've seen so far.

If you love or hate him, it's about the same as before.

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:20 AM
KO's new show is ... getting KO'ed, losing to reruns of "CELEBRITY APPRENTICE" in the key 25-54 demographic.

OH DEAR! (http://www.olbermannwatch.com/)

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:29 AM
KO is ... A RACIST (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V44sdAX5i-c&feature=related)

Soflasnapper
07-05-2011, 04:08 PM
If CurrenTV isn't carried by as many cable service providers, naturally fewer people can watch him, even if they wanted to.

I'd never seen this network's channel on my lineup until I accidentally noticed Keith's show's name there one day. It might not have been there before, not sure.

One thing that is for sure is that CurrenTV is more or less a startup network with limited programming, no branding I've seen, and no well-watched show to prime his viewership preceding his 8 pm slot. Looking around some of the listings, they tend to run an odd mix of older action movies and some weird stuff I don't recognize at all.

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If CurrenTV isn't carried by as many cable service providers, naturally fewer people can watch him, even if they wanted to.</div></div>

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

Soflasnapper
07-06-2011, 05:48 PM
Says here, 60 million households (http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/10/06/cable-coverage-estimates-as-of-october-2010/67004/)

Compared to 100 million that exist. And you have to buy two tiers up to get it.

LWW
07-07-2011, 02:49 AM
Are sat/cable providers astute capitalists?

You are de facto claiming that there is a grand conspiracy to deny the people the pontifications of KO. The truth is that essentially 100% of sat/cable households could get CURRENT if there was any demand for CURRENT ... which there isn't.

Now, to further slay your woefully conceived myth ... if programming ratings worked in synch with households that have access we would find a universe where FOX was losing to CNN and HLN while just edging out CNBC and MSNBC.

Alas, such a universe actually exists only in the theater of the mind.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 11:15 AM
So you change the subject? Nice pivot. No, since KO's new show is maybe a week or two old, there is no conspiracy to keep him from being seen, just a bad network with limited appeal up to now.

Of course, there has been little or no demand for CurrenTV, because they have had no popular programming to speak of.

Just got my XFinity channel lineup, and perusing it, notice that the limited basic (1st tier) doesn't include it, and while the digital starter tier includes CNN, MSNBC, FNC, HNN, etc., it ALSO does not include CurrenTV. You need still ANOTHER tier, up to digital preferred, before you get that 'network' on your cable service.

That's true, on top of having only about <s>60%</s> 51% penetration to start off with.

Getting eyeballs and profit takes time, as even Murdoch's Fox News Channel showed (he dumped a lot of money into it before it became profitable, and Fox Business News still has pitiful nearly zero ratings, which KO may well be beating already, despite, again, Murdoch dumping a lot of money into it).

CurrenTV has had a history of no money, failed IPOs in the prior decade, which was how Gore was able to get into it cheap. In the meantime, Comcast has recently taken a 10% ownership interest, so they are now BEGINNING to have some money to get better programming and higher viewership.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 11:21 AM
Now, to further slay your woefully conceived myth ... if programming ratings worked in synch with households that have access we would find a universe where FOX was losing to CNN and HLN while just edging out CNBC and MSNBC.

Riiiiight.

Because the difference of 87% coverage (CNN) compared to 85.45% coverage (FNC) is just the same as the difference between a mid-80s% coverage and 51% coverage (CurrenTV).

Identical, in fact.

[/LWW]

LWW
07-07-2011, 05:45 PM
Do you have any knowledge at all of statistics?

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have any knowledge at all of statistics? </div></div>

Less than people who use it all the time, but more than most. Finished my math degree in '77, and that is so long ago that I've prolly forgotten as much as I now remember.

Semper chi!

Stretch
07-07-2011, 09:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have any knowledge at all of statistics? </div></div>

Less than people who use it all the time, but more than most. Finished my math degree in '77, and that is so long ago that I've prolly forgotten as much as I now remember.

Semper chi! </div></div>

That's more than a match for LWW's BS degree from the U of AZ. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

LWW
07-08-2011, 04:10 AM
I'll take that as a no ... as your claim that KO losing in the ratings was simply because of a lower availability.

For a second chance ... why was he getting smoked on MSNBC when more households had availability of MSNBC than FOX?

Soflasnapper
07-08-2011, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll take that as a no ... as your claim that KO losing in the ratings was simply because of a lower availability.

For a second chance ... why was he getting smoked on MSNBC when more households had availability of MSNBC than FOX? </div></div>

Just to correct your mistaken impression of what my modesty meant, having had a standard undergraduate course load in statistics appropriate to a bachelor's degree in mathematics and science courses, I'm at a 95%+ percentile level of the population in my knowledge of statistics. I can handle anything you'd care to run my way in that field, which to date has been nothing. (Can't wait to hear THIS one.)

Is it true that FNC reaches fewer households than MSNBC? Not according to my prior source, which has the numbers this way:

Network.....Households.....% Penetration
..............(000s)

FNC...........99,057...........85.47
MSNBC.........95,414...........82.32

This is a snapshot of late last year, in October 2010, and reflects the fact that FNC had been taken off of Dish over contract disputes. As that has likely been resolved and FNC is (probably) back on Dish, FNC has still more households and thus penetration than these numbers reflect, further padding their lead in those measures over MSNBC.

This indicates Fox News is available in (at least) 3,643,000 more homes than is MSNBC. This is not an inconsiderable difference.

Perhaps at one time, your statement was correct, but that is now incorrect information.

Did KO's MSNBC ratings badly trail the FNC lineup's ratings? Of course, as is well known. As do or did every other cable news type show, generally.

Guess what? Cable news shows have a very small collective audience, and it's dying off, with the median or average age (I've seen it quoted both ways) of the Fox New Channel generally at 65-- 71 for O'Reilly's audience. The ratings Fox boasts about are less than 1% of the population, and now in across the board decline.

In this tiny slice of Americans, Fox is advantaged for several reasons. Start with the fact that older people skew more conservative, and as with newspaper readership, the cable news and political talk show audience is older.

Another is that they've had their big guns on the air, creating their brand and powerful shows leading up to other shows to help those later shows' audiences, since '96. KO went on air in '03 by contrast, and MSNBC went through perhaps 3 different business models and lineup strategies since that time. Their most recent strategy is now less than 2 years old. Rachel showed up only as of '08. Who led into KO's show? A RERUN of the execrably lowly rated Chris Matthews show, a perennial dog even on the MSNBC lineup's low ratings overall.

Still, in the money demo, MSNBC was far closer to their FNC competitors than in the overall cum number. Their website traffic, where people watch all or part of those shows on-line as is suitable in our day and age, far exceeds the equivalent offering on FNC (as their retired senior audience is less web-savvy than those people in the money demo).

Another advantage for FNC's ratings is that their viewers now report watching them close to exclusively, whereas the MSNBC viewers report watching several networks. There is but one conservative leaning network, and many that aren't. The non-conservative audience is split up across HNN, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, BBC, and yes, even watches FNC (for laughs and oppo research, just as liberals listen to Rush).

Your pretense that KO's show now being on a puny network with no real programming, with only 51% penetration (counting satellite access with cable access, a near 40% reduction in reach), which requires additional payment to watch for many, has no conceivable effect on his FIRST WEEK RATINGS, is phenomenally fraudulent.

LWW
07-08-2011, 05:19 PM
I'll take your numbers:

FNC...........99,057...........85.47
MSNBC.........95,414...........82.32

Now, if availability is the determining difference then PMSNBC should be nipping at FOX's heels ... yet they are being lapped, and worse.

How do you explain this while sticking to your claim?

Oh ... I watched KO again today. He is great comedy. Even more over the top than before.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 03:22 PM
I've already stated that in addition to the reach of penetration, other factors come into play. The division of the non-conservative audience between many cable sources, and the sole sourcing of the conservative audience to Fox sources, is very significant (and provable on the numbers).

If you know anything about programming successes and failures, it is also key as to what PRECEDES a show, whether the preceding show has good numbers or not. That was the Leno/Conan problem, among other things. KO could not have been more disadvantaged with a RERUN of an already low-rated show, EXCEPT NOW, with NO SHOW OF ANY NUMBERS right before his 8 o'clock spot.

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:11 PM
Or it could be that he's a howling moonbat whose audience consists largely of conservatives watching just to see what the stupid man will say next.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 06:24 PM
I'd say if you want to see his real appeal, look at his numbers at MSNBC before his switch. Not great, not horrible, decent.

The fact that his audience has not yet connected back to him is accountable in the many ways I've mentioned, including btw that they may be relatively loyal to MSNBC's lineup programming up against him at 8 pm.

I think Beck would have a comparable diminution of his numbers, had he left Fox, gone on a previously failing network with half his prior network's reach, against a favorite FNC host in his time slot on FNC. Starting from a higher baseline, of course.

We may even be able to find out soon.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Basically exactly like his old show.

He either always owned the name, or got it released to him as part of his severance agreement.

So it starts with the old NBC classical piece that began his show before, he flips up a 5 person montage, and intones, WHICH of these stories, etc.

Two differences I noted: 1) Craig Crawford joined him. Craig is a real journalist, and he had complained and dropped out of the MSNBC stable of commentators some time back when he charged he was being brought on to repeat the attack sound bites approved by the networks and hosts. Considering KO was one of the worst offenders if that bothers you, not sure how he squares going on KO's show when he wouldn't do MSNBC generally. Interesting.

2) He had Markos Moulitas on, the founder of the Daily Kos. Moulitas had been effectively banned from MSNBC at Joe Scarborough's demand, is the story I've read, after Moulitas taunted him in print that maybe somebody ought to mention the name of "x," (the name of the young intern found dead in his Florida offices, no disrespect meant to her but I just don't remember the name), after her being found dead and then having the disgraced corrupt medical examiner they brought in to handle this case, led to the near-immediate resignation of the just-elected Rep. Scarborough, prior to his getting this show.

Worst persons is still a feature, as is Fridays with Thurber (I always delete the show when that comes on at its end, as I just don't find Thurber that funny as read by KO).

No smashing of windows that I've seen so far.

If you love or hate him, it's about the same as before. </div></div>

Scarborough resigned his seat in Washington, soon after winning a re-election, because a scandal was about to emerge, about his D.C. mistress.

It was after he went back to Florida, and back into law, that his former D.C. aid, from when he was in Congress, in Washington D.C., and rumored to be his mistress, joined him in his law office, in Florida, and was found dead in his Florida Law Office.

Interestingly, he stated he was still in Washington, attending a meeting, when she was found, early one morning, however, the couple who found her, had an appointment with him that very morning.....and they arrived on time, to find the door open, and the young lady, dead on the floor, and called the police.

You are correct, that the medical examiner, was corrupt, and had left another state, after being caught fixing results of medical examinations, for money.

Immediately after the body was found, in Scarborough's florida office, Scarborough's office released statements indicating that she had health problems, which led to her falling and hitting her head, and dying.

Her family, however, immediately released statements that she was in excellent health, with no medical problems, whatsoever.

Other examiners who read the autopsey report, stated that her bruises were not consistant with someone who had lost consciousness, and fallen.


Scarborough goes off whenever the strange, unexplained death, is mentioned, naturally.
Another case of:

IOKIIAR

Or...

IIARIOK

G.