It is really odd the way CNN (or perhaps I should say Jonathon Klein) just can't get bad press in some places.
Patterico (I'm a few days behind here, so you all may have already seen this) is his usual tart self in just ripping this LA Times piece that focuses on a decrease in Fox's ratings -- while only noting in passing the fact that in comparison CNN's ratings have cratered. Which really becomes clear when you look at this post, linked to by Patterico, that puts the LA Times piece side by side with another, alternative interpretation of the ratings.
Just guessing, but I bet ratings for news channels, or news programs, go up and own according to whether there is actually news going on. Up - 9.11, Iraq war 'hot' phases, Katrina; down - Natalee Holloway, Michael Jackson, etc. Oh, and news that focusses on 'thought' (NSA network hunting) doesn't count in the visual world of tv.
Posted by: Glenmore | May 13, 2006 at 09:16 PM
Oh, without a doubt. The question is from what baseline. (For year's CNN served as a "visual wire service," and ratings spiked whenever something happened. They got into trouble whenever they messed with the basic service they provided in an effort to raise their baseline ratings, particularly after they were sold by Ted Turner and the pressure to produce profits cranked up.)
Posted by: dauber | May 14, 2006 at 04:35 AM
The ratings go up and down based on events, but they
go up twice as much for Fox News, and go down twice as
much for CNN, as the data shows.
Posted by: Media Hound | May 17, 2006 at 03:48 AM