Liberal Blogosphere Surpasses Cable News

Last year, I said it would happen by 2006, and even then only when it came to the Internet. It turns out my guess was way off. Here are their current ratings, as of Monday, June 6th, for the three cable news networks: Total viewers:
Total day: FNC: 869,000 / CNN: 352,000 / MSNBC: 186,000
Primetime: FNC: 1,758,000 / CNN: 721,000 / MSNBC: 306,000

25-54 demographic:
Total day: FNC: 304,000 / CNN: 98,000 / MSNBC: 76,000
Primetime: FNC: 416,000 / CNN: 150,000 / MSNBC: 129,000

By comparison, last week the Liberal Blog Advertising Network received 5.915 million page views, and that was the worst week in a while, because of Memorial Day. Typically, the Network generates over eight million page views per week. Further, roughly 70% of those page views came from the 25-54 demographic. In other words, these fifty-seven liberal blogs combined have already equaled, if not surpassed, the three cable news networks combined as a source of news among Americans under 55. Without any doubt, the blogosphere in general now far surpasses the three cable news networks as a source for news among Americans under 55.

Granted, this is probably due to the extreme dedication of many who read blogs, as the six million or eight million or however many million page views probably translate into a much smaller number actual people. Roughly 10% of the people who visit blogs are extremely dedicated, and visit numerous blogs and pages on blogs each day. Then again, that blog readers are more dedicated to political news than cable news audiences, yet still comparable in size, would lead one to believe that the blogosphere is far more responsible for determining the political zeitgeist than anything or anyone on cable news.

I guess we are the MSM now. Eventually, politicians, organizations and advertisers are going to have to catch on to this fact, as the ones who do so first will prosper. At the very least, that would make it easier to pay my $475 rent every month.

Tags: Blogosphere (all tags)



a thought for a more accurate comparison.
Do you know what the average viewing time is of each watcher? That info must be published.

You can probably estimate the average viewing time per page view pretty accurately.

Mutliply cable viewers by their average time, multiply the page views by that average time. I think it would produce an 'apples to apples' comparison and completely avoid the problem of the 'dedicated reader' skewing the results.

by srolle 2005-06-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: a thought for a more accurate comparison.
MyDD's average visit length is 1 minute, twelve seconds over the past week, according to site meter. That is probably fairly high for a blog as well, since we tend to be super sticky.

That seems like it would be pretty low compared to cable news. Am I wrong?

by Chris Bowers 2005-06-07 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: a thought for a more accurate comparison.
http 1.1 state maintenance mechanisms
don't work too well. This statistic
is likely misleading.

Also, bear in mind that many of us
who choose to browse, carefully -
pick and choose our exception
policy. Firefox has a wonderful
feature, just like IE,
where you can simple exclude all sites
from a certain domain to set a cookie ever
again. So that would blow away
your state information from a percentage of
your hit traffic.

What you have to figure out, really is where
all of the really hard core traffic
is coming from, and then, on that basis,
guess the time it takes to post.

Take that time, average the post length
and normalize it, then look at the percentage
of your population that actually post.

That is your weighted average of your
core audience time for visit,

Also look at the recurring visit
site stats. The reason is recurring,
is often that 1.1+ state variable
flopping out on you and the state
maintenance mechanism triggering a false
time for session by timing out the
first hit.

Never, ever confuse hits for visits.
And users for eyeballs.

A white, christian


by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: a thought for a more accurate comparison.
PS - chris

Don't forget, this way of looking at it sort
of explicitly excludes spiders.

when we look past the shorter, automated
and very lifelike, rubbery - robot spiders
we are going to see a very nice
picture here for mydd.

.. livin' on the edge so long..
where the winds of limbo roar..

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 07:47PM | 0 recs
That viewing time is guarded
like the national treasure. They
are so afraid it will get out
that TV viewership is declining.

My figures show about a 16% drop
in viewership, increasing.


As soon as people realize they're going to
save 50.00 a month by dropping cable,
and never miss it at all.. the sky's
the limit.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: That viewing time is guarded
except ...  i will not drop cable because i use it to visit, and post, in this blog as well as others.  I do not watch cable TV news, though!  :)
by inNYC 2005-06-07 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: That viewing time is guarded

your connection is showing..
you might want to do some monitoring there..
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 07:50PM | 0 recs
Let Me Get This Straight
Less than half of all viewers of each Cable TV network are 25-55? So either we have a ton of passionate 8 year olds watching O Reilly or half of Fox's viewership is part of the AARP? Forget that viewership is declining...what is Fox and CNN going to do when their audience dies?
by risenmessiah 2005-06-07 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Me Get This Straight

Actually, most everyone is playing Halo 2 right
now, except for the ones that aren't.

My name is Turok. Please to meet you. Hope
you guess my name..

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Let Me Get This Straight
No. I'd bet that Fox's viewership is heavily skewed towards a plus 55 demographic. Late middle aged white guys. Like my girlfriend's father.

Ben P

by Ben P 2005-06-08 12:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Let Me Get This Straight
Look again at the statistics. 25-55 is less than one 1/3 for every demo except MSNBC's in primetime. I mean, I do play videogames while using the news channels as background (or a baseball game or something) so I dunno. Still, why does Fox News look like the Catholic Church?
by risenmessiah 2005-06-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
you only pay $475/month rent
that's what I was most flabbergasted by.

Of course, I have to pay for a place for a family of

by chanupi 2005-06-07 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: you only pay $475/month rent

 Quantos. Chico, o chica?
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-06-07 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: you only pay $475/month rent
dos hijos, una chica...
by chanupi 2005-06-08 06:36AM | 0 recs
TV = toxic wasteland
The news is not informative, merely propaganda.
The entertainment is not entertaining.
The sporting events are all fixed (uhm..."tuck rule, anyone?"

Television is a 24 hour commercial interrupted by 9 minute programming segments, which themselves are nothing but more advertising.

TV has nothing to offer anyone but a vast wasteland of toxicity, misinformation and pitches for products no one needs.

My television is used solely for video game playing and viewing tapes and DVDs.  The TV tuner has sat idle for years.

Funnily, though I am not up on the very earth shatteringly important Michael Jackson trial, I have managed to stay reasonably informed enough because of blogs, friends and WOM, to know that the United States of America is in her darkest hour.  Will she emerge as the Republic she has been for over 200 years?  Or will she go the way of Weimar?

Heaven help us.  At least the Germans did not have TV operating against them like Americans do now.  Of course, they had radio, but TV is a much more powerful, dominating medium.  

I am pleased to find many of the sheeple seemingly awakening from their long slumbers, if not to total realization, at least, to the vague feeling that "something is wrong."

Here is a guideline for you.  If you are feeling stressed, tense, on edge, fearful or depressed and you either are on Paxil or some other such pharmeceutical poison, or you are thinking about going on it...YOU ARE BEGINNING TO AWAKEN.

Do not panic.  Turn off your television, log on to the internet and surf every blog you can find.  You will quickly learn there are people in the world who have insights you may find useful in guiding you through these dark times.  

One thing is for sure.  TV agitates, foments and perpetuates this creeping paranoia -- it is intended to.  Media, including the entertainment media, have been pimping for the powers that be forevah.  Ever wonder why it was so easy to sell the mythical "Arab terrorist" to us?  He was invented by Hollywood, given a three dimensional existence by the CIA and then "unleashed" on 9/11.

If you are still operating on information brought to you by Proctor and Gamble, you have no clue what is going on.

They have already destroyed NPR, which now is a shell of its former self.  PBS is fast becoming just another propaganda arm.

I predict more and more will begin looking to blogs as it becomes more obscenely obvious every day how the mass television advertising media (by which I include EVERYTHING THAT IS ON TV) has LIED LIED LIED to them.  Many will simply tire of hearing the screamfests;  others will realize they are slowly starving to death in an information wasteland;  still others will actually realize how they have been brainwashed, manipulated and lied to, to the detriment of their own economic, political and spiritual interests.

Pray that these fuckers don't take steps to destroy the world forum -- otherwise known as the internet.  

by Marblex 2005-06-08 06:30AM | 0 recs
I wonder if
Is it possible to break down those numbers by unique IP's visiting.  It would probably give us a more accurate picture of what is happening.   We could also use it as a bat to let the Networks know that they are pandering to the wrong, ever shrinking audience.  

This information is encouraging.

by NvDem 2005-06-08 08:00AM | 0 recs
Any real statistics out there?
Counting page views as viewership is like AOL counting multiple screen-names for membership. Bloats the real figures. How about counting actual blog membership?
by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-06-08 08:38AM | 0 recs
National 30 Sec Spot on Cable News

Here's what my sister sent me:

Here's what we had on hand- DR rates are daytime rotational, meaning spots can run anytime during the designated time period, (ie anytime between 9A-4P).  Let me know if you have questions regarding any of this.

DR      10a-4p $1000

Non-DR  9p-10p $17K
        10-11p $10K
        9a-3p  $3000

Fox News
DR      9a-12n $1350

DR      9a-4p  $800

Non-DR  7-11p  $1828
        9a-4p  $1500

DR      9a-4p  $1200

Non-DR  9a-4p  $2100
        11p-2a $2500

I'll post this on the dailykos thread as well.


by LawStudent 2005-06-08 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: National 30 Sec Spot on Cable News
by Chris Bowers 2005-06-08 02:32PM | 0 recs
thank you for this.
i'm an atrios regular, but this was posted in the comments and i'm happy enough to have registered here to comment about it.

please,please, i beg you: continue to post on this subject.

far too many, in the beltway and beyond, believe that cable news is important, relelvant, meaningful, etc., in the lives of "most" americans. as these numbers show, they are not. it's the echo chamber effect, and when we let slip the blinders, we see that for crying out loud! blogs get more readers than Candy Crowfeet or whatever, and no matter how the numbers are crunched, at least we're all text and discourse, where CNN etc are nothing but image and propaganda. which is more effective, in the long term sense?

i could write more on this but it's late for me. but please, keep this alive. this kind of info is important, for all of us.

by chicago dyke 2005-06-08 06:02PM | 0 recs
statistics shamistics
You're excluding a large percentage who have given up on the current state of American journalism.

How about those who have turn to the BBC just to find out what is going on in the U.S.?

FNC also tends to attract more zealots.

by foment 2005-06-08 08:36PM | 0 recs
I have Questions.  Apparently sometime this summer Al Gore's TV Cable Channel will start up -- a channel that apparently is specifically designed to attract 16-35 year olds, and will feature audience made short-subject video.  Will this have any impact on current Cable News viewership?  I rather suspect it will quickly mesh with blogs in a fairly dynamic way as video makers engage in discussions with audience and members of the audience elaborate subjects and themes.  

What do others think might be the riches in this new format?  

I too question the comparison of Cable News Viewership with Blogs.  Cable News has its uses when things are "happening" -- under normal conditions I mute the sound, and let the pictures roll and surf blogs with good old Public Radio on low so as to pick out when to turn it up and listen to something interesting.  But reading and actually watching TV with the sound up is distracting.  You can do neither very well at the same time.  But low volume Radio and Blogs work fine together.  

by Sara 2005-06-08 10:54PM | 0 recs
A changing world
Along with the news that blogging is surpassing cable news, Rupert Murdoch has come out to say that "digital immigrants" such as himself in the news business need to begin changing to cater to the "digital natives" - today's youths.

In addition to beating cable news, Murdoch points out that today's youths are not going to newspapers to get their news and instead turn to the web and even blogs.  

In a Guardian Unlimited article,14173,1459697,00.html he stated that only 9% of youths describe newspapers as trustworthy, just 8% find them useful and only 4% find newspapers entertaining.  

These statistics are staggering and shows just how important the Web is becoming as a news source.

by aedc 2005-06-10 08:59AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads