The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Fact: The breathless claim that Fox News' ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House's public critique is bogus hype -- hype that Fox News and the Beltway press have relentlessly pushed.
It's just not true.
No matter how many times reporters and pundits made the claim, a detailed analysis of Nielsen ratings numbers clearly indicates that in the two weeks after the White House in mid-October sparked a media controversy by claiming Rupert Murdoch's channel was not a legitimate news organization, Fox News' ratings did not soar or go "through the roof." In fact, not only did Fox News' overall ratings not soar, they experienced no significant increase at all. Instead, in the two weeks following the initial verbal jousts with the White House, Fox News' total day ratings virtually flatlined.
Think about it. The unfolding controversy, which gobbled up untold hours and pages of news coverage as the Beltway press treated the dispute like a major news event (even though news consumers couldn't care less), and the hubbub barely moved the ratings needle one inch in Fox News' favor.
Another example of the Beltway press not letting the facts get in the way of a good story? It sure looks that way. In this case, we saw nearly universal agreement among media elites that the White House decision to publicly call out Fox News was monumentally dumb, thin-skinned, short-sighted, and uncivil. (Paging the etiquette police!)
Everyone said so. Therefore pundits were certain that Fox News' ratings were way up and that Obama and his aides had made a huge tactical blunder. The ratings angle simply provided statistical ammunition for what the Beltway press corps already knew to be the truth: Fact-checking Fox News, in the immortal words of The Washington Post's CW-loving Sally Quinn, was "absolutely crazy."
Except it turns out none of that was true. There was no viewer stampede toward Fox News.
How did the story line about Fox News' (phantom) ratings surge morph into cemented fact? First, pundits simply announced the ratings bonanza was on the way. They knew it had to be the case, so they simply said so, over and over and over. (See below.) Then some misleading ratings reports began to surface that seemed to confirm the spike. For instance, on October 26, the Los Angeles Times, going with ratings data provided by Fox News, reported: "In the two weeks since aides to President Obama took after the [cable channel's] coverage, the audience has been 8% larger than the previous two weeks."
Not only did that report make a specific ratings claim, but it also set the parameters for measuring the supposed Fox News success -- its ratings for the two weeks prior to the eruption of the White House controversy, (i.e. September 28-October 11) compared to the two weeks that followed (i.e. October 12-25). Again and again we saw that model used to support the ratings "spike" claims.
On October 27, BusinessInsider.com used the same framework and posted this blaring headline: "Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama." Like the Los Angeles Times, Business Insider adopted the two-weeks-before-vs.-the-two-weeks-after model to conclude that in the two weeks prior, the cabler averaged 1.2 million viewers vs. 1.3 million in the two weeks after the political controversy erupted.
The Business Insider report was quickly trumpeted by right-wing blogger Allahpundit, who belittled the administration: "Good work, Barry."
From there, it's no exaggeration to suggest that virtually every high-traffic conservative blog on the Internet linked to the report and mocked the White House for helping spike Fox News' numbers. And like the bogus right-wing claim from last month that 2 million anti-Obama protesters gathered in Washington, D.C., on September 12 (the number was only off by 1.9 million), the dubious claim that Fox News' ratings had soared became the beloved gospel.
Late that same day on October 26, industry ratings site TVbytheNumbers.com also posted an item, which seemed to confirm the ratings spike: "Fox News Ratings Up During White House 'War.' " Like Business Insider, TVbytheNumbers, citing Nielsen data*, reported: "Fox News' total day adults 25-54 demo ratings and average viewership are up 14% and 9% respectively during the two weeks of 'war' vs. the previous two weeks of 'peace.' " And like Business Insider, TVbytheNumbers reported that prior to the controversy, Fox News averaged 1.2 million viewers; after the controversy, 1.3 million were tuning in.
The next day, the Chicago Tribune's political blog, The Swamp, parroted the same stat: "FOX viewership is up 9 percent and 14 percent among adults since the feud with the White House started."
Done deal, right? Wrong, because those numbers didn't add up. Or more specifically, those numbers did not reflect Fox News' ratings two weeks prior to the controversy and two weeks after. Instead, the numbers represented a cherry-picked attempt to create the illusion of a ratings spike for Fox News.
And here's how. As I mentioned, the two weeks prior to the White House dispute cover the dates from September 28-October 11. The two weeks after that cover the dates from October 12-October 25. But the tabulation used to come up with the 9 percent ratings gain (i.e. 1.2 million vs. 1.3 million) only measured Fox News' post-controversy ratings from October 12-October 23, which meant it was a 14-day comparison vs. a 12-day comparison. And which two days were left off the tabulation? Saturday, October 24 and Sunday, October 25. Traditionally, Saturday and Sunday, of course, are the two lowest-rated days of the cable news week.
What happened when you included October 24 and October 25 in the tabulation to make a true two-week-vs.-two-week comparison? Suddenly, that 9 percent gain in overall viewers evaporated into a barely-there 2 percent blip, while that 14 percent increase among viewers 25-54 shrunk to a much more modest 7 percent bump.
Behold the massive Fox News ratings "spike":
And by the way, in the world of cable news, a tiny 2 percent bump in viewership over a relatively short span of two weeks is utterly irrelevant and signifies nothing more than the normal up-and-down viewing patterns that are part of the business. For instance, on October 15, Fox News averaged 1.5 million viewers for the day. The next day, the total audience slipped to 1.3 million, a drop of more than 10 percent. Did that mean Fox News' ratings "plunged"? Hardly, which is why the channel's 2 percent gain in the two weeks following its battle with the White House didn't signify much of anything.
The same was true of the relatively modest 7 percent gain among the more targeted 25-54 demo. Because that audience group is much smaller (roughly 330,000 viewers each day as compared to the larger pool of 1.2 million), a 7 percent increase or decrease is unexceptional. Again, between October 1 and October 2, Fox News' total day 25-54 demo decreased from 415,000 to 320,000 viewers -- a drop of almost 25 percent. The smaller 25-54 demo often fluctuates like that.
And besides, if you listened to media elite pundits, Fox News ratings weren't inching up incrementally thanks to the White House. Pundits didn't cautiously claim that because of the White House critique, Fox News' ratings among the niche 25-54 demo were going to increase modestly.
Nope. The media chorus was unequivocal: Fox News' ratings were soaring [emphasis added]:
- "I sent Barack Obama, President Obama a fruit basket for all that comments because our ratings are up 20% since he made it." [Fox News' Bill O'Reilly]
- "[R]atings at Fox are through the roof." [Politico's Mike Allen]
- "Every time the president or one of his spokespeople mentions [Glenn] Beck or [Rush] Limbaugh, the latter two enjoy increased ratings and bucks." [Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker]
- "Beck and O'Reilly were nearly orgiastic. Every presidential harrumph sends their ratings through the roof." [*Newser's Michael Wolff]
- "It's working. Their rating, their ratings are going through the roof." [PBS host Tavis Smiley, on NBC's Meet the Press; 10/25/09.]
- "[A]ttacking Fox just drives the 'fair and balanced' news network's ratings through the roof." [The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott]
- "It serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings." [Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus]
- "By raising the network's profile, Obama has all but guaranteed higher ratings for his nemesis." [Arizona Republic editorial]
- "And the [Fox News] ratings will increase, and the White House will look petty in the short term." [CBN's David Brody]
- "The more Obama goes after Fox, the better the ratings." [Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin]
- "Fox will use this White House move to boost their ratings." [New York magazine's Daily Intel blog]
- "It's going to spike Fox's ratings." [Pundit David Gergen]
- "And the White House's public attack will no doubt give Fox 'stature' and boost its ratings." [Providence Journal's Edward Achorn]
This is what happens when claustrophobic uniformity takes over among the Beltway chattering class. This is what happened when the media elites agreed that it was nuts for the White House to fact-check Fox News, and they were sure that the administration's carping sent the cable channel's ratings "through the roof." With so little original thought involved in the robotic repetition of the anointed Beltway truth, nobody bothered to checks the facts.
The chattering class wanted to claim Fox News' ratings were going up, up, up. They wanted to suggest that the White House critique had massively backfired. But now we know that's fiction. So when are the pundits going to start posting their retractions?
We'll wait.
*For the record, the Nielsen ratings company never issued any findings regarding Fox News ratings in the wake of the White House dispute, according to company spokeswoman Alana Johnson, who responded to my email inquiry. Lots of third parties subscribe to the Nielsen data and can put together their own interpretations of the ratings and attribute that analysis to Nielsen numbers, which is what happened in this case. But in terms of Fox News, Nielsen itself never made any kind of official finding about the cable channel's recent ratings in regards to the public controversy.
*Michael Wolff writes from Newser, not TV Newser, as originally stated. I regret the error.
The “pre” data has a total of 14 days, and includes 2 weekend periods.
The “post” data has a total of 12 days, and only includes 1 weekend period.
Here's a re-post:
The "pre" data has a total of 14 days, and includes 2 weekend periods.
The "post" data has a total of 12 days, and only includes 1 weekend period.
Where was the info?
Here it is.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/fox-news-ratings-up-during-white-house-war/31797#comment-151256
Need better glasses.
News media being profit driven has the same kind of logical feel to it as health care being profit driven.
Where is the source for this? I don;t doubt it but before I go trumpet this I want the source.
MMFA is correct in the number of days posted in the pre/post analysis.
And, a search at the Nielsen site resulted in nothing. So they have not released their own analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotta Cherries getting picked here.
I suppose that using numbers to minimize the gains that Fox has made recently is to be expected. What you forgot to include is the loss in viewership of most other news outlets while Fox continued to grow.
Whatever the alinskyesque reasoning of the whitehouse, it has not isolated nor made less viable the option of tuning into Fox. In fact it has accelerated the trend of Americans to watch the Fox channel all the more. The stampede was a turning from liberal media as much as it was Fox gaining in viewership and obama has only thrown a rattlesnake into the herd to speed up the stampede with this strategy.
Look at the trends, from the article you cite. Since the spring Fox has been growing while typical liberal msm has been faltering. Except for a bump in CNN tallies in late summer, thank you Michael Jackson, the outlets that obama would speak to have lost huge chunks of viewers. Gee wonder why that is? It certainly does parallel the view of Americans about this presidency. As they see how leftist the administration really is and how in the tank lefty media has been, they are looking for truth and people willing to speak that truth to/about progressives.
I guess in your eyes Eric you see that only 2% gain is nothing to trumpet about regarding Fox. But when you compare that to the 60% difference in viewership then it fells your argument and only portends of what will happen as Americans see what liberal progressivism is all about. 2% gains compiled with 5,10,20% losses is a trend that you have to regretfully, agree will continue. If not, why try to minimize their level of acceptance by the American public?
Keep trying though, fodder for entertainment and pity are only increased. :>
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Ok, let's look at the tiney-tiny picture. Here's what was happening according to the article......
So in the tiney-winey picture you're looking at, this guy, looking at the same data, (Eric conveniently dropped the percentage notations) does see significance.
And that is without considering the abandonment of viewers from media outlets carrying this president's lefty water.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Oh and dollyinthedell, please don't look down there to formulate opinions, numb or otherwise. :>
I pointed out the inconsistency in tvbythenumbers chart to proudconservative twice. (see posts below)
So his concern has been addressed.
It's terrific to have your efforts here.
In the charts shown on the tvbythenumbers site, the "pre" data has a total of 14 days, and includes 2 weekend periods. The "post" data has a total of 12 days, and only includes 1 weekend period. Why leave out the weekend data for the "post" period? Not sound statistics, or as you would say "truth".
Based on this evidence, tvbythenumbers is a suspected source.
You may be correct, but I'd prefer to double-check anything that tvbythenumbers posts, before I make up my mind. That's how THIS liberal views the "truth". Not just cherry-picked data from Fox or tvbythenumbers.
Can you cite independent numbers that back up those charts from tvbythenumbers? Is the "truth" out there?
The article credits Nielsen for the data show and again, used by Eric, except with the percentages.
The other graph shows the overall trending for ratings. Once again, the article cites Nielsen as the source for the ratings.
I am assuming you know statistics.
In my post above, I mentioned that I too saw the fallacy in the chart from tvbythenumbers that MMFA saw. Can you see the error between the pre / post data? They leave out a crucial bit of info.
Pre - 14 days - includes 2 weekends.
Post - 12 days - only has 1 weekend. (not the same as the pre)
When I see this, I immediately get suspicious. Why leave the 2nd weekend out? Well, MMFA answered that - because it makes the numbers look smaller. Oh my!
So armed with this inconsistency in the data, I am now skeptical of anything tvbythenumbers posts.
So, the graph you point me to (2nd link) is also suspect, since it too is created by tvbythenumbers. Independent verification is needed. Just because tvbythenumbers says the numbers are from Nielson, does not make their interpretation of those numbers correct. Just like they didn't interpret the data for the first chart (your first link) correctly.
It's called "source integrity". If the source of the information is caught in a lie or a distortion, I certainly won't believe what they tell me from then on (unless they correct their error).
I just thought you knew the truth already & could help us out a bit. But, I'll just go look it up myself.
That's how this liberal seeks the truth.
We should follow the data, then make up our mind, not the other way around.
This has nothing to do with what you just typed, this is about the misrepresentation of a large increase of viewership. People are looking for truth, it is hard to find honest people at FOX. I am not a democrat, but I'd have to be an idiot to not recognize the nonsense being portrayed by most at FOX. Good luck with karma.
I agree that it isn't rocket science, but what Eric B has done is not give the truth. The truth is that this saul alinsky move by the administration to 'isolate' the target, ie Fox, has NOT worked.
Those cited above all agree because the numbers and trends prove it. Maybe a 14% or a 9% increase means little to you, but someone in the mainstream liberal media, whose numbers are tanking, those numbers do look like a stampede. So maybe rise in viewership is in the eye of the beholder and Eric and his chums at media matters (for very little) are afraid of what they and others are beholding.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
If you are "speaking the truth" as you say, then please speak the truth.
I have explained to you how tvbythenumbers has distorted the facts. They are not a credible source.
If you do "speak the truth", then produce a credible source for your position.
Prove your worthiness to "speak the truth".
Otherwise, you just re-enforce our opinions of conservatives. We'll just continue to conclude that conservatives don't know how to "speak the truth".
Hey, "Speaking truth to/about progressives" is your quote, not mine.
Wrong again. They are looking for affirmation of their flawed belief system. Read John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience. You'll like it. It's all about you.
Thanks for the tip, I'll have to check it out. It's probably back in the warehouse with Jimmy Carter's autobio collecting tons of dust because of the high demand.
Speaking truth to/about progressives
PS. Some might say that your post is off topic. Tsk, tsk. Be careful! :>
proudconservative: I appreciate your "slant" but cannot find causality with your conclusion. The numbers for Fox were apparently adjusted to maximize the purported effect...I'm sure, however, I've contributed to the decline in MSM audiences. It's not because I've been compelled to seek "fair & balanced", but rather what you consider "left" has been utterly patronizing. IMHO, feeling compelled to present "both sides" regardless of the integrity of content demeans the process. The focus is always to "present both sides" whereby documented, rational arguements are presented alongside unsubstantiated "widespread national perceptions." I accept we won't agree on policy, but giving up on insecure, "compelled to give both sides" reporters for the sake of "balance" in NO way implies an aggregate in acceptance of the Fox perspective.
Failing to support MSM outlets lends no credibility to your contention people are moving to Fox. We all seek perspectives that affirm our legitimate beliefs... and support those who do so without apology.
Actually, this person, dberge1977, is PATRONIZING the person to whom s/he is responding ... "slant?" How about someone's genuine honest opinion?
I suspect it's like using Rasmussen Reports as a polling resource.
Rasmussen Reports has a clear rightwing bias in the wording of their poll questions and their slant. In addition, their methodology slants right. They robocall land lines, which oversamples older people and others who stay home and those who will answer these kinds of questions - all those people lean right.
Rasmussen got lucky on election day - they weren't good.
Rasmussen biased, leading question --
Guidelines established by U.S. bishops state that Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame should not honor people whose actions conflict with the church's moral principles. Given these guidelines, should Notre Dame award President Obama an honorary degree?
Pew Forum --
Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama to give their graduation speech and receive an honorary degree?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLB79k9znLE
Fox is offered on basic cable. Most people have to pay extra for a special package of channels to get MSNBC. This would virtually guarantee Fox a much larger audience. But, y'know, whatever gets you through the night...
in this case, they are trumpeting a lie, and as much as it obviously wasnt true, the rest of the media still follows suit and repeats the same falsehoods anyway.
when will actual reporting and journalism start in this media? its getting ridiculous.
Interesting response when I pointed out the differences between his chart and the MMFA chart. He said "I am not interested in rerunning the numbers or making another chart, because it’s not worth my time."
Not the response one would expect from an "objective" source of data like this. Either his ego is bruised, or there's an agenda.
Until he addresses this difference, I advise everyone to take data from that site with a healthy dose of skepticism.
See, us liberals just do all kinds of lying.
Original Data Posted by tvbythenumbers
14 12
TV Pre Post
P2 1206 1312 9%
25-54 323 368 14%
14 14
Corrected using 10/24 and 10/25 data from tvbythenumbers
Days --> 14 14
TV Pre Post Pct
P2 1206 1240 3%
25-54 323 348 8%
Media Matters' data
14 14
MMFA Pre Post Pct
P2 1205 1231 2%
25-54 322 345 7%
Original Data Posted by tvbythenumbers
Days --> 14 12
TV Pre Post
P2 1206 1312 9%
25-54 323 368 14%
Corrected using 10/24 and 10/25 data from tvbythenumbers
Days --> 14 14
TV Pre Post Pct
P2 1206 1240 3%
25-54 323 348 8%
Media Matters' data
14 14
MMFA Pre Post
P2 1205 1231 2%
25-54 322 345 7%
Bill Gorman has corrected the post. He's added the following above the chart: "11/3 Edit: The comparisons in the chart are for a 14 day period prior to the “war” and a 12 day period after the “war”. Using a 14 day period after the “war” began shows increases of 2% for average viewership (P2+) and 7% for demo adults 25-54)."
He has invited me to create a new chart. Thanks for the catch, MMFA!
Bill Gorman has corrected the post. He's added the following above the chart: "11/3 Edit: The comparisons in the chart are for a 14 day period prior to the “war” and a 12 day period after the “war”. Using a 14 day period after the “war” began shows increases of 2% for average viewership (P2+) and 7% for demo adults 25-54)."
He has invited me to create a new chart. Thanks for the catch, MMFA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FX3SnVG-2A
Fox's rating have been steadily rising ever since the Obamanation's election. And the White house's attempt to control and direct the media is just plain stupid and will backfire. In fact as we watch the election results we can easily conclude that it has already begun to backfire. A sweep in Va to start and now hopefully NJ.
I thought we would have to wait until 2010 but it is starting already. Enjoy it while you can libs.
Score one for the truth. Seems the "liberals" you deride so much are more apt to check the facts of a story more than the "conservatives".
If staying on the side of the facts makes me a liberal, then so be it.
Better that than someone who is more comfortable believing what they are told by Fox - even if it is complete lies.
Ignorance is bliss, so enjoy it while you can.
I just like it when ignorance and lies are exposed for what they are. The tendency for that favors Republicans - perhaps I should also include the splinter party, the "conservatives"?
The "Conservatives" vs. the Republicans. Now the way that all plays out is going to be interesting to watch in the future.
Lol, what a hoot, Zel. Thanks!
now next year when in my state of PA elects a new governor im hoping that the guy i would like to see, Tom Corbett, our state Attorney General, and a republican would be elected. my only problem with him so far is that he has a big state government scandal where he is promising indictments on a large scale and is dragging his feat. now should he speed things up and do whats right.....then i would support him with my whole heart. if he doesn't well he is no better than anyone else lining themselves up for PA governor
That just didn't happen! It was Karl Rove's false meme that Bush's victories would lead to a permanent Republican majority.
We haven't been participating in such nonsensical hyperbole!!!
And Obama's visits helped bring Corzine back from being down almost 20 points or so to being very, very close, which is amazing considering his approval rating in the state was about 30%. How does an incumbent with a 30% approval rating get more than 40% of the vote? Because Obama came to the state, that's how!
And I know that your view is the exact opposite. You think that the end justifies the means.
I know that it doesn't.
And I don't believe you in any case that more Dems watch FoxNews than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. But go ahead and fool yourself however you need to.
The truth should always be in charge. Get a clue. The truth has a liberal bias.
Other sites are hotair.com and businessinsider.com
I don't consider this a relatively non-biased site, but I do appreciate I'm not a relatively non-biased reader, and I tend to lean far left on social issues, far right on fiscal issues (or a Federalist if you prefer). Calling the gains a myth is frankly false.
I suppose everyone will have to arrive at their own conclusions, factoring in their own bias. For me, I think that it equals a win for Fox news, as a 3-4% increase, and a 1-2% decrease from other networks is staggering when you consider the actual numbers (it's millions).
I like the "federalist" thing. That's a new troll-angle I haven't heard before.
This year, the broadcast networks began the Fall season in mid-September (e.g., "The Office" began 9/17/09). This meant new series and new episdoes for returning series on free TV. Typically, cable viewership falls as the audience checks out the new offerings, and picks up as viewers return to more regular viewing habits. And the introduction of Jay Leno's primetime talk show on 9/14 meant this Fall might not be typical of previous Fall startups.
Thus, Faux's alleged ratings increase over the previous "pre-war" period might reflect nothing more than the return of viewers who briefly flirted with OTA broadcasts (some of which were real turkeys).
It doesn't really matter what is included in basic packages. What matters is how many households have the networks, since many people don't go with the basic packages.
1) They cherry pick their periods, rather than analyzing all the data
2) They compare unlike things to unlike things.
3) They take a very small sample and extrapolate it way beyond any statistical significance that it might possibly have and proclaim it evaluative of long-term conclusions.
Bill Gorman has added a note to his chart to correct the error.
I have sent him a new chart that not matches the MMFA chart.
He's making the corrections. Gotta give the guy credit for that, at least.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/fox-news-ratings-up-during-white-house-war
And did you read the other comments? My assumption that it's a rightwing source for TV ratings info, similar to Rasmussen Reports for rightwing polling, was amazingly on point! A bunch of wingnut posters for sure.
are you talking about the dems, sure sounds like them.
By the way, did anyone else think it was odd that a White House flunky defended the War on Fox News by justifying it as speaking truth to power? Isn't this what journalists and other citizens are supposed to do with their government? The White House and the Congress are 'the power' for crying out loud. The leftist in his delusional mind always sees himself as the courageous crusader rocking boats and speaking truth to power even when the left has the power. Unbelievable.
The elite media (that means rich, powerful, and national by the way) has been conservative for decades.
"did anyone else think it was odd that a White House flunky defended the War on Fox News by justifying it as speaking truth to power?" -- Jon Stewart covered that. Look how fair and balanced he is.
Popularity and quality don't correlate. That's without rhetorical flourish.
FoxNews is NOT up significantly. You're either lying or ill-informed, and in either case, you've lost any credibility.
FoxNews is NOT up significantly. You're either lying or ill-informed, and in either case, you've lost any credibility.
I am from Denmark and I never really payed attention to FOX before, but after this incident, I think most ppl know FOX; and its twofolded, as the biased right-wing-station, as well as the only one that critisizes Obama.
I think FOX won this one on the long lane. You can only deter someone that is already out of power or a newcomer, but FOX is too big and growing like crazy. Given, Glenn Beck is loony, but if you can consider someone like O'Reilly a right-wing nutcase, maybe its you who has a problem.
FOX might not be pretty, but too many people think they fill out a void in the medialandscape, and thats basically how a post-modern democracy works.
...Anyways, just wanted to pay my respects to 'SLRTX'; when he was wrong on some numbers, he admitted it, and took the blows in an honest way. He is the kind of guy, I would trust making punches at my political ideals.
Keep it up SLRTX :)~
Albeit I may be transfixed by the blonde newsbabes, I have to use FOX as a primary resource for whatever conservative talking points that may show up on other newsoutlets.
what is the catchword of the day etc