Sorry, David, But it is spin...on your part. As was pointed out at tvbythenumbers.com, Keith Olbermann is UP in the 25-54 demo compared with the same quarter last year (Q2). Comparing Q2 of this year with Q4 of last year (when we had an ELECTION, lol, that everyone was interested in) is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. Also, Keith is still number one in young viewers, 18-34, as is MSNBC in all of primetime.

The pre-election/post-election excuse is discredited by the growth of Fox, which is up 50 percent year to year. Sorry, that's an excuse from MSNBC will not wash in the face of Fox's success. But it is an excuse Olbermann used in his complaint about me describing him as "slumping." Think of it: If the audience for political news is so much smaller and less engaged, why are Fox's post-election audiences so much larger? Thanks. Z

One more thing....

FOX News is up because you have a group of right-wing extremists who are suddenly out of power. FOX speaks to them. I notice freerepublic.com is also way up in traffic. Same reason.

Mr Zurawik you are all wet Olbermann is the best at the 8 pm hour on television.Maybe you are in love with fox news. He tells the truth about all the right wing reporters on fox who make up their own news. He beats up Limbaugh because of the lies he spews.

Looks like a "slump" to me. The adjective applies. I happened to be watching the night he had you as his third best person. I thought there is Z again, what is up with Keith Olbermann? He did not do a very good job at defending his ratings, he can't dispute the facts.

Gotta go to work.

It's not an excuse at all, David, no matter how much you wish it were. As I said in another post, FOX is up because the right wing extremists are out of power right now, and FOX speaks to them.

As I said, the only HONEST comparison is a comparison of Q2 2008 to Q2 2009.

By your logic, we could call CNN being in a slump this week when we compare their ratings with last week.....you know, the week Michael Jackson died.

No, you have six months of decline. Just read the graphic starting in January and work your way down. And then, there is Top 10, no Top 10 for Olbermann. And, meanwhile, Fox is through the roof after the election. I am just presenting the facts. Sorry. Z,/i>

Think of it: If the audience for political news is so much smaller and less engaged, why are Fox's post-election audiences so much larger? Thanks. Z

Do you really not know the answer to this, or are you just being intellectually dishonest? Allow me to explain... now that the Republicans are no longer in control of the executive and legislative branches, conservatives feel marginalized and thus need to tune into the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for comfort. Keith Olbermann's ratings climbed in early 2006. Do you recall which party controlled all three branches of government during this time? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the Democrats.

AAAhhh.. It's always about politics when there's evidence that there is a decline in ratings is due to political motives. Somewhere along the line, the ESPN Anchors started to believe they were "cool" and cutting edge. (Stuart Scott, is he reallly on television?? especially a disney owned station) Every single anchor who left the Extra Stupid People Network thought their audience would follow them. It's never happened. News used to be reported and the anchor's opinions were left to themselves. Ocassionally, the last story would have some harmless subtle humor and that was enough. That's why Walter Cronkite was considered one of the most trusted men in America. This guy who's ratings have plummetted doesn't deserve the honor of reporting the news. Would you trust him in light of his psuedo rock star antics regarding women?? It's pretty simple, his rating are down cause he's horrible. And that's the way it was....

Both your way and Olbermann's (MSNBC's) way of reading the numbers are valid, David. Fox can crow that their overall viewership is up, and MSNBC can feel satisfied that they're up in the sector that has money to spend. Also consider: more of Countdown's younger adherents watch the show via podcast, esp. in areas where MSNBC isn't available to cable subscribers, while Fox's older contingent views Fox on their conventional TV machines.

(Fox IS the undisputed champion when it comes to misidentifying naughty Republicans as Dems in their captions, though!)

Hi, Do you have a citation for the statement about more of Countdown's younger viewers watching podcasts? I am not disputing it. I am really curious to see what the size of that audience is. Thanks. Z

David, you ask, "Do you have a citation for the statement about more of Countdown's younger viewers watching podcasts? I am not disputing it. I am really curious to see what the size of that audience is."

Just the ever-popular anecdotal info that I get from reading blogs and message boards, I'm afraid. But if it's anything like what I see there, viewers aren't letting a little thing like the absence of MSNBC in their cable lineup get in the way of their watching Countdown, which has become a rallying point for many of the young and politically involved. It's been that way since the first 'special comment' went viral.

Hi, Thanks. Again, I am not saying it isn't true, but I have not yet seen a cable lineup that didn't include MSNBC. But I have always lived in larger cities or university towns, so maybe my history is skewed in that regard. Have you seen a cable lineup without MSNBC? THanks. Z

I know I am one of those 50 year olds that don't seem to matter even though I think I am in about the only age group that has any money to spend. Well I watch what I want to watch and I don't give a crap what the ratings are. Personally I don't think summer ratings mean much because most peoples viewing habits change during this time of year.

I'm not going to get in a ------- match about which show is better. I just think the ratings are flawed at this time of the year. Yes I know it was over the last 6 months but 4 of those months we start spending as much time out away from the TV when coming out of winter hibernation.

Also each side can cherry pick these numbers to make their network look like they are Gods favorite.

Kim: Countdown and MSNBC aren't number one in young viewers, 18-34, in primetime or any time. You read MSNBC's press release comparing their meager numbers to CNN's dwindling viewership. Fox News was not included in the misleading release. Fox is so dominating that neither CNN or MSNBC mentioned FNC in their latest press releases. And Z, Keith should have thanked you for calling his fifty percent decline only a "slump". You were being kind.

Hi Achilles, Thanks. That is exactly what it felt like Kim was quoting, the MSNBC press release which ignored the fact that Fox has pulled miles ahead of MSNBC since January. I have a post on Fox ratings on the blog this week. I thought I was being kind, too, about Olbermann and his ratings performance. Thanks. Z

I used to like Keith when he was on SportsCenter, not so much on his show now. Though I still watch, as he continues to make me laugh (unfortunately for him, that result is now not as intentional as it was in his ESPN days). And generally now, I watch just to be ready for the generic talking points my liberal friends will be throwing out at me the next day.

I wonder if the difference it ratings are him, or saturation in the market. I mean, if a conservative wants to watch "their brand" of news, they turn to Fox. If a liberal/progressive wants to see their Obamamedia and Bush bashing, they turn to anything else.

Hi Johnny, Yes, on that predictability of the talking points. I agree. Thanks. Z

Liberals getting their ----- kicked on cable news and radio and all they have are excuses.

I think Olbermann said the ratings were up in the under 24 age group, thank goodness I can't be held accountable for that ratings boost then, I don't fit that demographic. Z, I thiink he is using you for a ratings boost whenever he sees a "slump".

When you get right down to it if you are looking for any REAL News you sure aren't going to find it at FNC, MSNBC or CNN. All those channels are is pretty, hot looking chicks reading what the teleprompter says. Each network spinning a story to what their viewers want it to be. It really is a joke.

Thank God we can still search the Internet for REAL news of what's going on in the world or even about THE WAR WE FIGHTING RIGHT NOW!

How many of yoiur internet sites have a real reporter covering the REAL WAR "we are fighting right now"? CNN does. Does Google, Yahoo, Huffington Post? Thanks. Z

Some of it was predictable, that MSNBC would come down after Obama won but it's mostly Keith himself.

He's still doing a show for Kos Kidz. People aren't interested in hyperbolic left wing screed narratives every night. "Bushed," he's still doing that pap and people have moved on.

Now he's trying to be in opposition to the guy he got elected, with the "don't ask, don't tell" etc. Sorry Keith but the only people who want to hear Obama bashing will tune in Fox, not you.

The bigger story is Maddow BTW. He ratings have completely tanked.

Yes, on Maddow and ratings "completing tanked." Thanks. Z

David, you state, "I have not yet seen a cable lineup that didn't include MSNBC."

I guess if you aren't someone who's trying to get it, you might not be aware of the difficulty, but lack of access to MSNBC has been a source of consternation for some time now, David -- esp. coupled with the fact that cable systems who do carry MSNBC have in recent months been moving it from the analog to the digital tier, putting the network increasingly beyond the financial means of many viewers.

So there exists a complex aspect to this issue that you need to start taking into account. MSNBC has responded to the pent-up demand with their podcasts -- but where is online viewership reflected in the numbers? If you're going by conventional ratings, you're ignoring a big part of how people are receiving cable news shows now.

And frankly, if you pause to think about it, is it likely you'd even be blogging about Olbermann and MSNBC as frequently as you do if the network were as inconsequential as you suggest? Instinctively, it seems, you sense something else is going on that the ratings aren't telling you. ;-)

We're ignoring the reason Olbermann is constantly destroyed in the ratings by O'Reilly. Olbermann doesn't have the courage to allow debate or dissenting opinion on his low rated program. O'Reilly will debate anyone, anytime. Look at recent O'Reilly debates with democrat operative Joan Walsh and Congressman Barney Frank. Both Liberals were given ample opportunity to present their side of an issue. Olbermann will only allow sycophants and flunkies on his program. You must agree not to challenge or debate Olbermann or you're not allowed to appear on his democrat party agenda driven program. A small group of closed minded partisan democrats enjoy Olbermann's brand of left-wing propaganda but most people want to see dissent and debate. Olbermann doesn't have the skill to defend himself so he absolutely prohibits any debate or dissent. Therefore, the abysmal Olbermann ratings. Remember, Olbermann tried many programs where he was forced to defend his propaganda, he failed miserably and usually looked like a blithering idiot in the process. I believe Olbermann was fired five times from programs where fair minded debate and dissent were allowed.

Have you actually watched the show? If you watch it he is stuck in past. Olbermann's worst person and some of the other graphics and segments were fresh, but how many times can he name Bill O'Reilly the worst person till the bit is old and tired. How much more Bush material can he have, it will not be long till people don't remember who Bush was.

It wouldn't be surprising if Olbermanns ratings are tanking. Does anyone really need to tune in to know what his opinion is going to be on any particular issue? His show has no real debate .. just the usual gang of merry 'yes' men brought on to reinforce KO's opinion. which ,, by the way .. are generally echoed by every other opinion show in the lineup .. shuster matthews .. shultz .. maddow .. olbermann .. same stuff .. different hour.

I do like the morning joe show .. that bunch isn't afraid to be real. It would be nice to see more cable opinion shows that aren't so idologicaly scripted that it becomes predictable and less informative.

ChickaBOOMer: Keith Olbermann Slump
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/07/keith-olbermann-slump.html

MSNBC doesn't bill its shows as "debates" and some people may remember a time when discussion shows didn't require fake debates (Fox's primary contribution) in order to be interesting. News, the exploration of issues, and the presentation of opinion are interesting, in and of themselves. Screaming matches culminating with the host cutting the guest's mic are not illuminating -- they're just theater.

John Watson said, "Remember, Olbermann tried many programs where he was forced to defend his propaganda, he failed miserably and usually looked like a blithering idiot in the process. I believe Olbermann was fired five times from programs where fair minded debate and dissent were allowed."

John, you must be thinking of someone else. Checking Olbermann's career chronology on wikipedia, I see that he's hosted only two television shows that weren't sports-related. Two. He quit the first (also on MSNBC and favorably-received by critics), and is doing well enough in the current one to command a $7.5 million annual salary. More important are the million viewers, on average, that he attracts each night. He's obviously not going anywhere, which is the only thing that matters when all is said and done.

Keith Olbermnn is a national disgrace and now he is a total failure. He is a ranting lunatic the likes of which we have not seen since Joseph Goebbels.
His storm troopers in the left wing hate machine are losing faith in him.

Public television doesn't get Fox-type ratings either. Ratings do not equate to quality or value. Higher ratings simply mean Fox appeals to a lower common denominator and a less discerning audience.

Kim,
It really is great to see KO and your type losing ground to true Americans on this our Independence Day holiday. Check the lead in ratings for the two guys before KO...they are less than a drive time AM station in a B market...really. Why is this happening? Because you and the KO media do not represent Americans and it is simply reflected in the facts. Though there was much "to do" about the '08 election... KO still couldn't touch FOX. This is a Conservative country and one that remembers and rewards its heros...and Honey, KO ain't one of them!!!So go write a manifesto and swallow the facts this guy Z presents...sure is wonderful news.

BeBop,
First, get a grown up name if you are here to lecture about the quality of the FOX, or for that matter, any audience. Though I am aware of the differences between Fox and MSNBC, I rarely watch either.
That said, it is a fact that MSNBC cannot find enough audience to pay for itself.
Add up the liberal
"wannabe real broadcasters" 1)Air Amerika 2)PBR 3)PB-TV and 4)MSNBC.
Wow...all of those liberal so-called broadcasters are insolvent if they were real companies and had to stand on their own two antennae...wait a minute...that sounds like, hold on, I've got it....

IT's Socialism!!!!

I finally get it (look down here bebop, an intellectual thought wafting around the undiscerning idiots).

The anti-American stations get to stay on the air even when no one listens because they must be good for all of us great unwashed out here who may work and pay for themselves, their families, charities, global hunger and disease and 50% of society who does not work and pay for themselves....like MSNBC (through increased GE consumer brands prices) and ALL of the communist stations that public broadcasting supports with our working class TAX dollars...it's Crystal Clear to us...Be-Bop boy and little kim.

Making fake boob jokes and tea bag references are all quality TV. Keith has lost his edge and is falling fast. Why do you think he made the new WTF spot? Where he is going wrong is focusing only the Bush Admin. and Republicans. If he went after everyone equal he might actually grow a larger audience, but when you keep beating the same dead horse and keep repeating yourself people become annoyed or just stop watching.

Jimbo, are you suffering from testosterone poisoning, or are you merely channeling Ann Coulter? I don't get cable and watch very little television, but fella, watch your great unwashed mouth. We're ALL real Americans here, including the ones who don't agree with you. Keep it civil if you know how!

Jane

Janey...KO is un-American and so are those that would trash our national treasure, the young people who fight for our "freedom".
The slander of our President and our troops while in office and in war is unprecedented in American history...oops there I go again discovering through written expression...EXCEPT for Vietnam when our troops were denigrated with our President causing the US to lose the only war in our history. Now that was productive.
There are so many ways to rip the far left media to shreds, but here is a quickie for janey:
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, only freed the slaves SOUTH of the mason Dixon line and much more; yet he is the mirror in which the anointed one sees himself...and the press wouldn't dare touch Abe or Barry Hussein.
The same freedom that affords KO / A-Amerika/KOS / Murtha / Pelosi and the rest of the far far left-ies to give their opinion on the air, gives me the right to call them what they are; unamerican. Deal with it.

Ah, Jim, Jim, Jim:

Can you at least view your opinions in a civil way? You sound as though you want to punch somebody's lights out. Is that constructive? Or do you just want a brawl instead of a discussion? I'd rather exchange views, but your rant yesterday frankly made me as angry as I've ever been.

It is not your place to call someone un-American just because they don't agree with you. It isn't my place to say the same thing about you either. Remember - your right to swing your fist only extends to the end of my nose and no further. Your opinions are opinions only and (thankfully!) not fact.

I thought that President Obama was being compared to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not Lincoln, but never mind.

Re. Abraham Lincoln - please review your history again. Yes, Lincoln did suspend Habeas Corpus, and yes, the Emancipation Proclamation did only free the slaves of rebellious states (not "south of the Mason-Dixon line" as you stated - Maryland has always been below that line and remained a slave state until the end of the war), but you seem to be unaware that the press of the time called Lincoln just about everything but a child of God until he was assassinated, only at which point he gained his current hallowed status.

Lincoln's main goal was the preservation of the Union, not abolition, though he very much looked upon slavery as a great wrong. Yet amazingly enough, when all was said and done, ALL the slaves were freed, and the Union was preserved, and we have Habeas Corpus back. Who wouldn't want to see themselves in that mirror?

(Of course, we all know it went downhill fast and hard for the former slaves when the shameful Jim Crow laws were permitted to be enacted, allowing reenslavement in everything but name, but that came later.)

There is plenty of current criticism on "Barry Hussein" (as you call him - I'm sorry you seem to have a problem with his name) on the editorial pages of the newspapers I have access to, which is where opinion belongs. I am afraid that too many Americans are having more and more trouble telling opinion-spouters from those who are supposed to deal in facts alone, and that includes those who we watch on television.

Sooo - is your problem with the Left as a whole or the "Far Left", and where do you draw the line? Do you have similar difficulties with the Far Right?

I am liberal and proud of it and I love America as much as you do. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed.

Jane

I am actually enjoying this discussion between Jim and Jane, kind of like a mini-history lesson. I guess liberal or far-left or republican or far-right aren't we all American's if we are interesting in how we can affect change on our government in a positive way and in upholding all the rights that we possess as American's in this great democracy. Can you two smile and make-up?

Hi, Sherry T.!

Sorry if I sounded combative in my last two emails, but I get that way when my poor old ox is being gored. The most difficult part of engaging in an Internet discussion like this seems to be remembering to treat the persons you are debating as though they deserve civility. My parents would have backhanded me if I addressed someone else the way some folks tear into each other from the safety of the Internet. The ad hominem attacks are upsetting. I sincerely believe that people say things to each other over the 'net that they'd never say to those same people face to face. We weren't raised like that. (Well, OK, I wasn't anyway!)

If Jim wants to be a man and apologize for slandering quite a few good Americans, then good for him, I'll cheer him on and listen to his informed point of view. If all he wants is to pick a fight, I respectfully ask that he take it to a bar where someone might oblige him.

It's a real shame when folks in the media demonize, because Joe Public begins to think he should do it too (she added, trying desperately at the last moment to stay within the theme of the general thread). It gets us nowhere.

Jane

i'm an independent who used to watch Olbermann when he was slamming WBush.

but now i don't go anywhere near MSNBC's silliness.

when i watch news i want to hear things i don't necessarily agree with or things i don't understand. i don't need to hear msnbc's unbearably smug blabfests. i want to hear some dissenting opinion.

i think the role of the media under any administration should be to be a type of watchdog and to be the skeptic. if you're nothing more than the media lapdog, then i'm done with that channel. that's msnbc.

i've overcome my distate for fox. and the truth is they at least invite dissenting voices to argue with (whereas msnbc invites people to agree with). fox may still be heavy-handed, but they're consistent. and the fact that they were wrong about bush's policy in iraq doesn't mean they're wrong about obama's approach with the economy (which biden has admitted was inadequate).

i learn more about the economy from CNBC and Fox than i ever would from CNN. MSNBC doesn't have serious discussions about the economy, because all they're capable of is personality politics.

so count me among the group that has shifted whole-heartedly away from msnbc. i find maddow's manner annoying. i personally dislike david schuster and andrea mitchell (and obviously now, keith olbermann). they're all rank amateurs who have nothing remotely in common with good journalism. at least with fox i know how to read them and what to take away that's useful.

and what's with Ed Schultz? the left's "blue-collar" answer to Glenn Beck?!

that's laughable and typical of the manhattan mindset to try and combat Beck's appeal (such as it is) with their very own Left version of the crazy, aww-shucks populist.