|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 8:41:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
Notice how FHky omits the date.
A quote taken from your linked article.....
"If Fox News’s declines were one major change in the cable news landscape, the other big shift came at MSNBC, where viewership by any measure grew in both daytime and prime time in 2006."
It also says that the trends will continue in the same way.
This article was done in '06',and it was correct about Fox`s decline and MSNBC`s growth.Now fox can`t gloat as much as they used to.
It`s always a pleasure when the opponant hands you the info needed to trounce him.
Did you really think you were fooling anyone?
Thanks Firmhanky
Owner,
Rather snarky and belittling response, there isn't it? You seem to think I'm "trying to pull" something, and make some kind of point that I'm not.
A straw man argument tends to show someone who either can't, or won't address an issue. What issue is it, exactly, that you are afraid to address?
My point was that fargle's "71 year old" audience figures were likely incorrect, and that they came from a source with an agenda.
I provided links so that anyone could go back and read my source - which you apparently did. Good for you.
The information was from data gathered in December of 2006. Perhaps you have access to the latest Nielson figures, or whatever source provides audience data such as this. If so, then post them, rather than ineffectively trying to shit all over what I provided. Snipping at my heels without providing any substantial information or logical point or argument other than "nah, nah, nah, nah" doesn't earn you much in the way of respect, I don't think.
Addressing directly your point:
"If Fox News’s declines were one major change in the cable news landscape, the other big shift came at MSNBC, where viewership by any measure grew in both daytime and prime time in 2006."
Why don't you provide the numbers? Don't you understand them? Even with a slight decline in Fox's ratings, and a slight increase in MSNBC's rating, where do they currently stand in relationship to each other?
Oh ... wait ... I posted that in my first post to fargle, using his source:
MSNBC revamped its prime-time schedule two weeks ago, shelving many of its prime-time hosts in favor of documentary-style programs but retaining “Countdown,” a program the network cites as its great growth story.
That growth, while coming from a base that Fox News would find disastrously puny, is demonstrable, especially among the group that is chiefly sold to news advertisers: people between the ages of 25 and 54.
...
That qualifies as a feat for MSNBC, though Mr. Olbermann’s show remains little more than a dot in the rearview mirror of Fox News.
You can go and google the exact figures, but this says plenty. Basically, it's a major news story that MSNBC has a "demonstatable" increase of any kind in it's viewership - although it's "puny" in relation to FOX.
It's always nice when your opponent has the information in front of him, but seems to be so caught up in his partisan one-ups-manship that he doesn't even see it.
I know you lefties just hate FOX, and will take any chance to put it in the worst light possible. I don't really care, I just thought that when you do it, you should do it accurately. Which fargles "71 year old audience" wasn't. And which your pointless snarky sarcastic comments above weren't either.
Have a nice life.
FirmKY
|
|
|
|
