Olby's War

[KickButtUnggoy]

Mind if I ask where this is recorded from?

[InvestigatorDave]

John:

You got "crying" out of that? How?

I'm on "the right"? Have we met? Have I declared my political orientation? Where do you get that?

I'm losing? Losing what? You made a point that was immaterial to the conversation at hand. I even granted that you might be correct, but that it was immaterial. We have yet to disagree, really, but you declare me losing?

What proof, and of what, would you like? Don't understand the request.

Please point out any lies I've made. Love to see you do it.

[GstateBALLER925]

neilsen ratings may 22

oreilly factor

key demo 422,000

total 2,113,000

countdown

key demo 453,000

total 1,069,000

dave, i would LOVE to further elaborate on the subject of oreilly ratings declining and olbermann ratings increasing. the last few posters gave it a shot, but ive got more proof to back up why fox news is not anything that you say it is. i despise people that pander to fox news and its right wing fascist propaganda. by the way let me know what you think of those ratings.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

To my knowledge, O'Reilly was off that whole week for vacation. He had guest hosts. These ratings to not compare O'Reilly to Olbermann, therefore. Still, Factor overall beat Countdown's overall.

BTW:

1. What did I say FNC was that you will disprove?

2. As I am unaware of any "pandering" I suppose you don't "hate" me. (What a relief.)

[GstateBALLER925]

dave, from what i have seen many times, the olbermann haters on youtube love to say that olbermann has terrible ratings, some even going as far as saying that he has no ratings period, which is clearly false. the ratings that im showing prove that olbermann is closer to oreilly than people want to think. by the way, he tied oreilly 507k viewers a piece in the demo on may 14th, so i think that says something. and olbermanns show is the fastest growing news show compared to the others out there.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

Until such time as I declare myself an Olbermann hater, or demonstrate that I am, isn't it early to call me such?

Olbermann is close in the demo you selected, but still behind -- just as he is behind in the overall ratings. Speed of growth not withstanding, the ratings for O'Reilly, even on the days you selected, are higher than Olbermann's. That's all I have ever said here. It is the sum total of the point, and it is true.

[GstateBALLER925]

overall ratings dont mean anything anymore... the key demo is whats important to the advertisers. ppl can bragg all they want about oreillys total viewers, but its not as important as the demo, which olbermann is quickly closing in on.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

Overall ratings are still important, and the break down of the various groups in that are also important. The market segments represented are important to advertisers because some products are more age specific than others (which is why sugared cereal ads on Saturday cartoons). Some products used by all ages. Overall and specific both important. And Factor beats Countdown in both categories (still a fact). Pats were closing in on NYGiants, but in end all about the winner.

[GstateBALLER925]

overall ratings are not as important as the demo because advertisers want viewers that are young and going to live for a long time so that they will continue watching. when you have old people watching, who knows when they might pass away, and stop watching. now dont get me wrong, anyone can lose interest at any time no matter the age, but i assure you the young viewers are more reliable than older ones. they rely on the young people. and the factor isnt beating countdown as much as it used to.

[GstateBALLER925]

and dont forget dave, keiths viewership was very low just a few years ago... hell even 1 year ago, his total was horrid, now it cracks a million every night. now, in the demo he has tied him once head to head at 507k, maddow beat ed hill, and keith beat hill as well. that may not be much of a victory, but its a moral victory bc it shows that countdown is a lot closer than people thought he was. majority of oreilly viewers underestimate keith claiming he has "no viewers", which is perposturous.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

Countdown is improving, but still losing. Tied demo on night you specified: a night with a guest host.

Maddow, E.D. Hill not part of this discussion, and not programmed opposite 1st run of Factor/Countdown. Irrelevant.

Moral victories typically are straws grasped by losers in terms of win/loss.

Cannot speak for majority of O'Reilly viewers. Surprised you can.

[GstateBALLER925]

well there is a reason the demo is 25-54 and not a different age group. they obviously care about that age watching their shows. total viewers is like the people that buy a newspaper, and the demo rating is the people that read it... the readers count. anyone can just buy a newspaper, but the ones who get around to reading shows that they maintain interest, and somehow fox maintains interest in its viewers, but theyre ratings are carefully fading. you might not see it that way but its obvious.

[GstateBALLER925]

and yes, a win is a win, but everyone has their excuses. when olbermann tied oreilly, oreilly fans claimed that "oh olbermann had a special comment, it wasnt a regular show"... it shouldnt matter, regardless of whatever, he attracted his viewers. just typical excuses. even if olbermann wins, oreilly fans say it wasnt by much, or some stupid thing like that. even olbermann fans factor in the viewer difference. its a big deal because if you kill someone in ratings, its more noticeable. am i wrong?

[InvestigatorDave]

O'Reilly hosting the Factor vs. Olbermann hosting Countdown is a victory for Factor night in and night out. The one anomoly you cite where Olbermann won is hardly a trend. Not an excuse; a fact.

Back to: a win is a win, adding: a bunch of wins is a trend, adding: winning consistently is dominance.

[GstateBALLER925]

all of what your saying may be true, but what im saying, and what has been my point from the very beg of this debate, is olbermann is catching up in the ratings. i know oreilly has won 77 months in a row... fine, those could just be conservative viewers. but oreillys lead in both the demo and the total used to be very high and it has been cut significantly. do you not notice this? if you compare the ratings right now to ratings from 2 years ago, the difference is clearly noticeable.

[GstateBALLER925]

my point on oreillys viewers being conserative is just a hunch... i have no solid proof of it, but its very possible. just as many of olbermanns viewers are liberals.

[InvestigatorDave]

The ADVERTISERS care about the viewer demographics because they want to advertise their products to the correct audience. The NETWORK cares about the demographic so they can sell air time to the advertisers appropriately. One of the key factors in selling the time is not just "who you got?" but "how many of them?". Therefore, (follow me now) the show with the HIGHER ratings WINS. That is for each demo category and overall.

BTW, newspaper analogy is a bad one.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

You are betraying your lack of knowledge about the demo. Advertisers traditionally want younger viewers because they have more disposable income for non-necessities. Older viewers, however have certain products that are age-specific to them. Advertisers do not care how long (length of life)younger ones watch the show. The network programming chief does. Watch who advertises on O'Reilly vs. Olbermann.

And AGAIN: Factor beating Countdown regardless of margin -- a win is a win.

[InvestigatorDave]

John:

Could not follow your first sentence. Please clarify.

Your point may have been "relative", but immaterial to the conversation. Perhaps even factual, but still immaterial to the conversation.

I understand ratings quite well. I am not pouting, what gave you impression I am? Even IF I did not understand ratings, which people's valuable time am I wasting?

[InvestigatorDave]

John:

That was a rather petulant response. I picture you stomping your feet and saying this much like a 4 yr. old.

Yes, you may insert yourself into a conversation. It is just so much more meaningful if the inserted comment is related to the topic of discussion. That was my point.

What was the point of your last sentence?

[InvestigatorDave]

John:

The conversation into which you have inserted yourself was regarding both overall ratings and the dedication of the FNC viewers. Your comment is not very pertinent to that. If you care to read the whole thread, you will be more able to identify the topic of conversation on which you are commenting.

[aumbaapa]

Great commentary. Fox News Can dish it but can't take it.

[dogstar7]

Regarding Bush's statements on the floor of the Knesset and the Presidents council writing an extraordinary letter to NBC:

Israel made a fool of our President, or exposed him to be a fool (however you see it) by announcing before the week was up that they have begun informal talks with Syria (and by extension, Hezbollah) in order to address the crisis in Lebanon...even though Syrian intelligence was behind the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister.

Appeasers!

[jerryfoster41]

Vietnam Iraqistan deja vu again  100 more years but they're never gonna win US out of the middle east

[tomcatpak]

As I see it, Keith took up the cross of having to counter "Bill-o"'s big lies thta mislead the country. So at times he could come across as his personal battle against Bill-o, but in all actuality, he's trying to correct what's been misled by the "Faux" media and of course the government.

[RedPandaBoy]

i should have wrote this earlier, but after looking at the entire speech.. When the president said NBC got it wrong, that seems to be false. The president said that his speech was about taking words seriously... while ignoring the words that were being questioned "Is this related to obama" and "Is negoitating equal appeaseemnt".

It seems the president was steering away from the question, and reframing it to something else.

[wildwilly1111]

That's the subtext of the Adminstration's complaint: W dodged the question, and the editing made that obvious.

[RedPandaBoy]

I don't think it's much of a war... one person say stuff, and the other person reprot the stuff the other guy says that's wrong.

[dogstar7]

This is a battle of wits...with one side (FOX) hopelessly outgunned.

[eyesonfox]

Agreed. In this battle of wits Roger Ailes of Fox News who's leading the charge is clearly unarmed. Pit Bull O'Reilly's hiding under his desk. Both are notorious bullies but, for once, it doesn't appear their nastiness is intimidating the other side. Probably because Olbermann's earning his bosses a lot of money and Fox News' right-wing attacks are great advertising.

[InvestigatorDave]

Actually, it is a battle of ratings, and one side, (FNC) is beating the pants off of the other (MSNBC).

[dogstar7]

Yes, this is true. And I understand that crack cocaine and prostitution are quite popular, also. Your point?

Who knew propaganda was a profit leader? Murdock is an evil genius...well, evil anyway.

[InvestigatorDave]

Dog:

Chewing gum is also quite popular, but you chose to compare television ratings to two illegal activites. Do you consider television broadcasting to be illegal?

Presumably you believe FNC to be propagandists. For whom? And in your answer, you should identify the individuals/company paying said propagandists in order for the tag to stick. (Out of curiosity, can you name any guests on Olbermann's show that don't have his same political/social beliefs?)

Murdoch is evil, why?

[dogstar7]

InvestigatorDave

First, you are making a false analogy.

Secondly, I'm not submitting to cross examination.

Lastly, this isn't a chat room for lurkers, find someone else to have limited human contact with.

[InvestigatorDave]

Dog:

My analogy is false, but yours holds water? Hard to make that claim, but you do, and without support.

"Cross examination"? You mean asking questions for the purposes of clarication? I guess you just can't support your statements.

I am well aware of the purpose of YouTube, and have not confused it with a chat room. Sorry you are unable to support your claims, but lashing out and criticizing me will not substantiate your statements.

If you learn how to debate, come on back, won't you?

[dogstar7]

Debate? With you?

Awfully high regard for ourself, have we?

[InvestigatorDave]

Yes, debate. (If you know how.)

Yes, with me. (If you're up to the challenge.)

As regards my self-esteem (thank you for your concern, btw), it is not a topic of this exchange.

[dogstar7]

If you insist...

The analogy of FOX news to crack cocaine is valid because both give you the momentary and false sense of fulfillment and empowerment ("Wow! Angry white guys are right!") followed by an emotional crash ("Spanish speaking people still shop at my Wal*Mart, dammit!")

The allusion to prostitution is obvious.

All are addictive and, whether you realize it or not, most people consider FOX just as illicit and corrosive to society.

[InvestigatorDave]

1. FNC is legal; drugs and prostitution are not.

2. FNC gives news and news commentary. What you describe as "false sense of fulfillment and empowerment" are AKA: different stories and perspectives than you're used to seeing. Does not make them false, unless you can prove them to be.

3. "Emotional crash"? Wouldn't that drive viewers away, not attract them?

4. Allusion is not obvious. Explain?

5. Addictive TV? FNC illicit? Then FCC must be fiing suit, huh? "Most people"? How explain ratings

[dogstar7]

Lighten up, Francis. It's call satire.

You're confusing "ratings" (an advertising metric) with broader public appeal and acceptance of view.

The majority of the American public isn't watching television religiously...or, for that matter, with the religious fervor and dedication...as FOX news viewers.

Most people have lives.

Of those who don't, as proven by the "ratings" you allude to, most watch FOX, it's true.

Conclusion: More social pariahs chose FOX.

[InvestigatorDave]

Ratings are used for more than setting advertising rates. Ratings are, however, also a measurement of how many people are watching the show. People watch shows with content that appeal to them. FNC higher ratings than MSNBC, so you draw conclusion.

Do you have facts to support claim that FNC viewers watch religiously or with dedication? Or facts to support claim that FNC viewers don't have lives; are social pariahs? Otherwise you are spouting opinion, and proving you don't know how to debate.

[dogstar7]

Listen up InvestigatorDave,

This "debate" you think we're having is farcical. I'm just choosing to indulge you, barely.

My comments are what they are: take them or leave them. To demand that I defend myself to your liking is preposterous.

Doubtless, this will not satisfy you. You will probably answer this reply with another challenge...claiming that you've bested me because I've quit validating your feeble arguments. So be it.

I've got better things to do, that's all.

[InvestigatorDave]

Dog:

Really, the indulgence is all mine. You have failed to back up any claim you have made, and then change topics when your previous statements are challenged.

I have not bested you because you've quit validating my arguments, but rather because you cannot support your claims: I have not really been in a debate with you at all.

I hope that your "better things to do" include researching your claims for supporting evidence. Then it might be fun to exchange posts with you.

[dogstar7]

whatever...

[km6xz]

The US electorate is certainly at a disadvantage compared the rest of the developed world, for no where has the combination of government and big business been able to generate as dominate a propaganda machine to maintain power for the right and money and ever lowering paid workforce for the corporate sector. No where is the population so uninformed or ill-served by the press and media as in the US.

Fox is popular with people who have been swamped by the Big Lie, not something to brag about.

[aliesheatell]

O'Reilly's a bully and a coward.

[crazytvfan815]

go Keith!!! WOOH!!!!