You do know that "total viewers" is not the standard that the advertising world places on ratings and where they do their ad buys, don't you?
Total viewers is one aspect of the rating games, but it's all about key demographics. And in some key "money" demographics, certain MSNBC show beats CNN shows. And on some occasions even beats out Fox.
Most of the ratings system are propriety information and is not releasable without paying for it. Do you think Nielsen and Arbitron give away their information freely? So it's kind of useless to discuss "ratings" without all the facts.
And for someone that doesn't really grasp ratings to call someone who is a professional on the ratings system dishonest is pathetic.
Sure, I know it's not the "advertising standard," but this is not an advertising or broadcast industry rag. It's a public forum where mostly just plain Joe and Jane come to discuss matters of real world importance. I think most here would consider that for the purpose of this discussion, unless you and I are advertisers, the only relevant numbers are total viewers.
The numbers your "professional" chose to use were the ones that reflected favorably on his network, and for obvious reasons... he's the President of MSNBC. It's no secret that he, along with, and under the guidance and control of GE's Jeff Immult and NBC's Jeff Zucker, have helped to run an outstanding network straight into the ground. In fact, I figure they’re about halfway to the mantle by now. NBC News is in a post-credibility posture.
I couldn't care less which network has the best ratings. I just want to hear the truth. They all have their faults, but NBC is the widely acknowledged lackey in that department, and it's no surprise when you consider that GE stands to reap untold billions if Cap & Trade (what a moronic name for an energy bill) gets passed. Think they don't have a vested interest in keeping this administration’s stem greased? Ray Charles could have seen that...
Phil Griffin made no distinction as to which numbers he elected to use, and for the claim to be made in a press release intended to be seen by subscribers and potential subscribers (lay people), it is obviously misleading to them. It's his network he's touting? See what I mean about credibility? It's the NBC paradigm.
In the daily ratings that I see (as of just Wednesday), MSNBC has nowhere near the viewers of the other two, except occasionally one hour of the day, but if you want to use the youngster demographic and two month old data, go ahead - there are a slew of cheesy network execs that would just love to talk to you about 30 second spots. The only numbers that make sense to the real world are for total viewers. That's the only true measurement of the popularity of programming, just like the vote tally in most elections (Al Gore not withstanding). The rhyme or reason that advertisers and network execs use bears little resemblance to reality.
Olbermann on occasion tops Campbell Brown, but that's the only hour of the ratings day that I ever see MSNBC topping CNN, but together they don't come close to adding up to O'Reilly's numbers.
Nielsen's May 2009 ratings are in
MSNBC Beats CNN (Again)
May was the third month in a row that MSNBC beat CNN in the weekday prime demo and the second in three months beating CNN in total viewers in weekday primetime, solidifying its standing as the #2 network in weekday primetime.
Btw, Hobby, sad that you chose to quote the Huffingwindbag Post. Whether you like Sara Palin or not, they can't have a shred of decency or credibility to have run a story entitled "Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform." Oh, you’ll find only an apology there now. They were forced to remove it in short order.
Pathetic, indeed... Now you know the meaning of the word.