Drudge is reporting, based on anonymous "top sources," that Megyn Kelly will take Fox News' 9 PM ET slot when she returns from maternity leave. So what will happen to Sean Hannity, whose Hannity show currently airs at that time? We don't know yet. But there's one thing his fans can probably count on. UPDATED.
The race baiting and Republican cheerleading Fox viewers have come to expect during that time slot will almost certainly continue with Megyn Kelly at the helm, but with blonder hair and leggier legs.
Actually, there's something else Hannity viewers can count on: he won't be leaving Fox. He and Bill O'Reilly recently signed multi-year, mulitimillion-dollar contracts. And Greta Van Susteren says her contract keeps her in prime time.
So who will leave prime time? Or will Kelly co-host with Hannity? And will this shake-up help draw younger viewers to Fox's off-the-ratings-chart geriatric audience? Stay tuned!
UPDATE: Roger Ailes told Neil Cavuto today, "All of our stars will be back" and hinted that Shepard Smith will be part of the shakeup.
It’s very odd to see someone continuing to pretend that their case hasn’t been disproven in the face of a considerable pile of evidence in the other direction. Either it’s very important to him to maintain the illusion, or he’s simply playing a game, as he’s discussed in earlier posts.
The link I gave you to mediabistro simply reports what Nielsen says.
I find it interesting that when you are presented with specific facts, sources and information, your response is to term such things “smoke screens”. I do wish that you would have either answered the questions presented to you or that you would have done the studying that might have helped you learn about this issue. Your failure to do either leaves me with the conclusion that you just wish to stay with your own opinions regardless of the facts of the matter. You’re not alone in this – there are plenty of Fox News viewers who judge current events in terms of their opinions rather than the facts. But it definitely speaks to a failure in our educational systems that some people can openly refuse to learn and point to this refusal as a badge of misguided pride. Your continuing inability to even spell the word Nielsen correctly or recognize the role of the Daily Variety illustrates your refusal and further damages your postings.
Again, I thank you for inadvertently confirming your situation. I do hope that at some point in the future, you may be able to spend that time studying and learning about this subject. Until you do so, we will be compelled to consider your postings as uninformed opinion and an attempt to troll a subject that is not only of concern to readers here but clearly to the management at Fox News.
For the umpteenth time, Daily Variety doesn’t rate programs. They simply post a listing of what Nielsen has published. They’re not the only one who posts that listing. Most major newspapers do the same thing. The Hollywood Reporter does the same thing. Ratings analysts post more detailed work on Nielsen numbers at tvbythenumbers.com. And that’s just scratching the surface. There are plenty of other sites out there, looking at numbers for multiple venues and genres of programming. That’s why there’s a site like TV Newser, which focuses in that area.
Given that I work in this business and have repeatedly had to deal with the difference between overall ratings numbers and the demo numbers, I’m trying to offer you a bit more perspective than what you’ve been trying to throw around here. You’ve repeatedly talked about this issue as being a game to you. For those of us who work in the business, it’s not a game – it’s a very serious matter that affects whether we work or not. You see, if I work on a program that gets good overall numbers but doesn’t do much in the key demos, my show gets cancelled and I lose my job. Just ask the people who were working on Harry’s Law, or Vegas, or any of a hundred other shows over the past decade. If I work on a show that’s pulling in good numbers in the key demos, the network will keep that show running and we all continue to have our jobs. See the difference? For me, this is very much a matter of my “daily bread”.
What is your background that you can try to present yourself as an expert in these matters? How many years have you worked in television programming? I’ve been in the business since 1994, and I’ve worked on multiple long-running series. Ratings and demo numbers are things I’ve personally lived with for nearly 20 years. So from where does your expertise stem?
The strangest part of his last post is his projection about everyone else somehow not doing homework. He was the one who needed to do the research, as his posts showed he didn’t understand the nature of Nielsen ratings and demographic groups. And yet somehow, he’s decided that he can be better informed to stay with his opinions and not do the simple studies that could have given him an informed perspective.
He cites what he calls “the ‘bibles’ of TV and Hollywood ratings”. This while he continues to demonstrate complete ignorance of how the Nielsen ratings function or even how to spell the word Nielsen.
I now believe we’re either dealing with a very young poster or a very stubborn one, or both. Either way, he does not seem to be open to the concepts we have repeatedly tried to explain to him.
As for Mathews— surely you jest. Germany did not use chemical weapons in WWII. It of course gassed people in its death camps, but it did not use that stuff as battlefield weapons. Matthews is entirely right about that.
This is not a matter of “Game set and match”, and it’s frankly a bit offensive that you could think of serious issues as a “game”. Please do what was asked of you and try to learn something about these issues. You may find that your posts will be informed by something other than your own opinions and feellings.
Behold the Fox Echo Chamber at work.
All the cable nets have lost viewers over the past year, including Fox, but Fox is losing a larger portion of that key younger demo advertisers want.
That’s a fact.
The average Fox viewer, like the average GOP voter, is skewing older and older.
You need to understand that demographics are the key to ratings analysis. The fact that you are refusing to answer this basic issue is quite revealing. It’s not a matter that “Fox is losing anything”. It’s a fact that Fox appeals to an overwhelmingly older viewer base, which is why you see commercials geared to that audience on that network. That older viewer base is considered less lucrative by the advertisers who fund network and cable television. I’m frankly shocked that you refuse to understand that basic fact. This information doesn’t come from opinion sites – it’s the very backbone of the television industry.
BTW if you were to research Media Matters, you would find that its founder is David Brock. Brock actually started his career over 20 years ago as a right wing GOP commentator. He switched to the liberal side for personal reasons somewhere around the late 1990s as I recall, at which point he started up that organization. But I don’t cite Media Matters. I’m citing any number of basic texts on the television industry, including one called “This Business of Television”. You might want to read it.
Once again, I strongly suggest that you take some time to learn about the matters upon which you are opining. Plain, pure and simple – having now asked you three times to do so, I agree with your statement that “I don’t know how much clearer I can say it.”
You continue to fail to understand the nature of demographics. You continue to assert your own opinions to be facts, and you continue to be unable to even spell the names of the Nielsen ratings service or the Daily Variety, all while you claim to understand the meaning of their numbers. This would lean any impartial observer to conclude that you simply have no idea of what you are opining.
I make my living in the business of television. I am well versed in the meaning of demographic groups and how different groups have different impacts on Nielsen ratings. People who work in this business are well aware that a program can have a high number of viewer and yet still not come out ahead in the key demographics. Just ask the producers of “Harry’s Law” and many other shows that pulled in millions of viewers and were still cancelled. This doesn’t mean that Fox News programs are in danger of cancellation. But it isn’t helping Sean Hannity in his time of need.
It is entirely possible for Fox News or any other network to attract a large audience, but primarily an older one. CBS programs do this on a regular basis and the other networks regularly do better in attracting advertisers who want the 18-49 and 18-34 demos. And that’s where the big money lies in this business.
The “left” isn’t scared of Fox News by any means that I’ve seen, but they are concerned about Fox News’ continuing misrepresentation of basic facts. This problem has resulted in Fox News viewers regularly polling at a level of ignorance of current events that can lead to some serious disconnects – as we saw during the election last year when Fox News viewers were convinced that Mitt Romney was going to win by a landslide and got one of the rudest surprises in modern history. (And the evidence has shown that Fox News actually misled their viewers intentionally on that score.) The whole point of this website is as a necessary corrective – for the record, for common sense and for posterity. I haven’t seen any fear involved in it – other than from right wing Fox News fans who can’t seem to tolerate that their channel isn’t telling them the truth.
I strongly recommend you take some time to research this material. You could try any number of sources – TV By the Numbers is a good place to start. Spend a little time trying to learn something about this subject and you may find that your posts will have more of a basis in facts rather than your own opinions and feelings.
I don’t know that Hannity’s treatment of Colmes means much, though. Colmes wears a “Kick me” sign pasted to his forehead, and it was clear that Hannity had less and less respect for him as time went on— not just for his views, but for his flailing and his apparent willingness to be dominated and pushed around, even to the point of getting seriously declining air time on the show.
I still don’t see how this works out without Fox putting two of the four together. It may be that one of the current three has decided he/she wants to step back a bit for some reason, and sharing a show would be a good solution for them.
But I could be wrong.