No, and I’m done with trying. I think he’s not, you know, all there.

Jane, are you able to figure out what Dan is saying in that last post? He seems to be very angry but I can’t make more out than that. It honestly reads like the written equivalent of jumping up and down.

Kevin, what’s bizarre, and what’s kept me replying to him from time to time, is that he really appears to believe what he’s saying quite fervently. And then there was that bit a couple messages down where he’s outraged because “just checked the drudge site as you claimed to do and there is nothing on the site saying what you claim it does,” so he apparently doesn’t realize that news sites don’t keep the same stuff on the front page for weeks. Plus he doesn’t understand how to do a search.

I agree Jane. This is a truly strange discussion. Dan seems to be unaware that he has been presenting his own opinions as facts. He also seems to be unaware of the futility of repeating a disproved assertion. It sounds as though he is having some problems with being unable to answer the basic questions and statements that have been presented to him here, and is resorting to what sounds like insults and jibes. I’m not certain of the logical value of a statement like “Tough too bad” or “thanks for the laugh”. I’m sure that typing statements like that may feel good for the poster, but it doesn’t get around the facts Dan seems to be unable to address.

Except that you have your “facts” totally and demonstrably wrong, according to Nielsen. There isn’t even a question here.

Surreal. Sorry. Your denial of reality and inability to read Nielsen figures is surreal.

Surreal.

I must commend Dan on finally learning how to spell Nielsen correctly. It is unfortunate that he didn’t take any time at their site to learn a little about what the various numbers mean. But getting the spelling right is at least a start. Perhaps he may spend some time looking up the various citations and studying up on the issue. I continue to have a small hope that he might one day learn something about this.

Jane, I don’t think Dan understands that he’s failed to make his case. The repeated doubling-down on his opinions and feelings about the issue indicates he may be unable to look at objective facts. It isn’t just the egregious misspellings and conflations (somehow “Democrat” = “far left”). It’s that he has never been able to show that he has any expertise in this area. When asked, he has resorted to insults and deflection.

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.

This is really funny. Nielsen (note spelling) says exactly precisely what Kevin keeps trying to tell you. Check it out. (You’ll have to spell it right to find the Web site, though.) The cold hard facts are indeed with Nielsen. The problem for you is that they don’t say what you’ve imagined they say, they say what Kevin is telling you.

The link I gave you to mediabistro simply reports what Nielsen says.

Sigh. Facts: the network declined across the board year-over-year and posted its lowest ratings in the A25-54 demographic since August 2001 in both total day and primetime.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/august-2013-ratings-fox-news-far-out-front-posts-lowest-demo-ratings-since-2001_b193608

Dan, I’d like to thank you for confirming the basis for your expertise on Nielsen ratings and demographic groups. More precisely, since you have now directly refused to answer basic questions about this, we must conclude that you simply do not have any such expertise or any credibility. In plainer English, it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about as regards the subject of this thread.

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.

Dan, your opinions on this matter have been extensively refuted. I have repeatedly and patiently asked you to do some studying to learn about how ratings and demographic groups work when it comes to television programming. I have referred you to books that can help with this. You have responded by refusing to do any studying or learning on the matter. To make matters more interesting, you have not only been unable to cite any sources beyond your misreading of one industry trade magazine but you’ve also been unable to even spell the name of the Nielsen ratings service correctly.

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?

It’s very odd to keep receiving emails of posts by the same person trolling the board when each post is almost completely identical. He discusses proof he does not have and sources he has not provided and he continues to show very little knowledge of the subject at hand. Based on the latest example, I must conclude he hasn’t actually read anyone’s responses and is simply making blind posts. It’s difficult to respond to him since he’s not adding any new information and his opinions have already been soundly disproven.

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.

Bizarre and delusional. Not even Roger Ailes would back you up. Yes, Fox does have more viewers, more’s the pity. It’s also, according to Nielsen, losing viewers in the key demographic at a disturbing rate, which is why Ailes is trying to shore up his primetime with people he thinks will have more appeal to a younger demographic.

Kevin, I agree. I confess I’m just amusing myself. Sorry!

Jane and Ellen, I think it’s now clear that we’re not dealing with a person who wishes to discuss this issue or learn anything about it. His pattern indicates he simply wishes to troll this thread and repeat his talking points without being distracted by the facts.

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.

You are still delusional. I said below that both Fox and MSNBC have lost viewers in the last year, but CNN is holding relatively steady. Fact remains, Fox is losing more viewers and the age of its audience is climbing ever higher as younger viewers tune out.

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.

Dan, have you taken even a moment to read my specific refutations of your opinions? Have you taken even a moment to do the studying I asked you to do?

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.

I just realized I misspelled “obstinance”… It’s a stubborn mistake that I tend to repeatedly make…

Dan Gray, I don’t know what kind of research you did, but I’m pretty sure News Corpse is not affiliated with Media Matters in any way.

Yup. Just thought I’d add my voice to yours so he can’t pretend it’s just your fantasy.

Behold the Fox Echo Chamber at work.

Jane, I don’t think Dan understands the reality or wants to learn about it. I have now tried multiple times to get him to study about the facts on Nielsen ratings and demographics, and he keeps coming back with his opinions and assumptions. The weirdest part of this is his belief that the Daily Variety is a “source” in ratings. Variety simply reports the numbers they get from Nielsen. So does the Hollywood Reporter. So does Tvbythenumbers.com. Dan hasn’t figured that out, and he doesn’t seem to want to.

What is this, unskewednielsen.com? You’re totally denying reality, Dan. And you haven’t been anywhere near Nielsen or Variety (it’s Variety, not Vanity, though I understand the confusion) or you’d know this.

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.

Dan, your obstinence is frankly surprising. You were asked to actually do some research and learn something about the nature of ratings and demographics. You have come back with a string of insults and an assertion that your studies consisted of doing one internet search. You’re not actually going to present that to anyone as an example of serious research, are you?

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.”

Dan, if you truly understood the matter you are speaking about without basis, you would not be posting statements such as you have. This is why I recommended you take some time to learn about the matter. Doubling down and repeating a baseless opinion does not constitute study and learning. I strongly suggest that you actually put some effort into your education in this area.

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.

Dan, I don’t know if you understand how Nielsen ratings actually work. You might want to study up on demographics a bit, as they can determine a lot about many programs. You also might want to ease up on your rhetoric about “left wing channels”, unless you’re coming from the idea that somehow Fox News is in the mainstream of this country.

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.

Nope, Hannity regularly loses the key demo of 18-34, which is a major factor in any ratings analysis. No question that Fox News regularly gets a large older audience. But like the candidates they promote, they’re having real trouble appealing to younger viewers and voters. Desperately trying to spin that away will not solve the GOP’s problems, or Fox News’ issues.

Ellen, you make an excellent point about there not having been much of a tryout for a potential Meg and Sean show.

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.

I could see Fox bosses thinking Hannity and Megsy would be good as co-hosts. But I don’t see them working that well together. Hannity was insufferable toward Colmes and I don’t see him giving up control to Megsy and I’m not sure she’d like being dominated by him. She’s almost never on his show as it is now. I’d think if they were going to pair them they’d have put them together a few times to see how it works.

But I could be wrong.