All that cheerleading for Obama-Biden, and all they got was a continuation of their lousy long-term ratings drop.
Perhaps one reason why Big 3 network coverage of the 2008 presidential election was so heavy on fawning favoritism towards Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined with all-out attacks on John McCain and Sarah Palin was that the belief that an Obama presidency might revive interest in their declining evening newscasts.
If so, that strategy has spectacularly failed. Nine weeks into Obama's presidency, it's clear that after a short-lived revival, the audiences for NBC's Brian Williams, ABC's Charles Gibson, and especially CBS's Katie Couric are smaller than ever, and that (with the exception of NBC's Williams) the remainder who are still tuning in are older than ever.
After a significant post-election rise that peaked during the first full week after Obama's inauguration, the viewership drop at all three networks has been steep, to the point where all three have fewer people tuning in than they did a year ago at this time (source: the Evening News Ratings page at Media Bistro):

From their respective levels during the week of January 26, NBC, ABC, and CBS are down 17%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. As a whole, as seen above, they're off 17.4%. In the coveted 25-54 demo, the decline from January 26 is even worse (off 26%, 19%, and 26%). An astonishing 70% of viewers are not in the 25-54 demo, and it can be safely assumed that the vast majority of those are 55 or over.
It looks like the geniuses at the Big 3 Nets got the worst of both worlds: They've lost even more older viewers, not in small part because of their obviously biased coverage, and they couldn't hold onto younger people who, at least during the election, were disproportionately Obama fans. Too bad, so sad.
We now return to our regularly scheduled evening news show meltdown.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It seems...
March 25, 2009 - 14:44 ET by ontheright...we are witnessing the irony of poetic justice.
Evening News!
March 25, 2009 - 14:45 ET by blazermaniacThis shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The general population is fed up with the cheerleading for the current administration. And anyone whom thought that Tuesday Night's News Conference was a success, is an idiot!
Finally!
March 25, 2009 - 14:46 ET by RukusSome really good news! I guess with the "Big 3" it's SNABU. Bwahahahaha!
Gary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
And isn't it ironic... don't you think?
March 25, 2009 - 15:07 ET by katainkentAn old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late
And isn't it ironic... don't you think?
As Obama's popularity goes, so does their ratings. They are irrevocably tied together unless they drastically change their ways.
First the newspapers
March 25, 2009 - 15:14 ET by doug1950Another consideration is....when will the Fed govt step in? Already talk of the govt getting involved in newspapers, what if when the major networks finally hit bottom the Fed agrees to take them on as well. Once you control the media, the banks, the money, the "free" market, how far away can total control be. We have already seen a government willing to overstep its authority and take over things best left to free market forces. It has been controlling the resources for decades.
The folks that work at the big 3 already are in the tank for Obama and would be more than willing to sell out completely if it means keeping their jobs. Imagine the propaganda that can be spewed out then, especially if some mutant variation of the Fairness Doctrine gets implimented.
Incremental encroachment along with half the populace that is as dumb as a bag of hammers. This is like standing by watching a 7 year old playing with a loaded pistol.
Politics over ratings
March 25, 2009 - 15:14 ET by Galvanic"Perhaps one reason why Big 3 network coverage of the 2008 presidential election was so heavy on fawning favoritism towards Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined with all-out attacks on John McCain and Sarah Palin was that the belief that an Obama presidency might revive interest in their declining evening newscasts."
I have no doubt that the MSM's swooning for Obama had something to do with ratings. But let's not overlook the lefty-perspective that they shared. Obama not only had a viable shot at becoming the First Black POTUS (and journalists love to say they covered history), but he was the most liberal Senator in the US Senate, and was bringing that political bent into office with him.
Had it been primarily about ratings, the MSM wouldn't have dumped Hillary Clinton so quickly after Iowa. Despite her "comeback" in New Hampshire, they hopped on the Obama bandwagon.
If it were all about ratings, they would've pumped up both Obama and Clinton in the hope of getting a brokered Democratic convention, which would've driven their ratings through the roof. Instead, they just about handed it to Obama even before he locked it up.
In the general election, they could've increased ratings after Palin was named to the GOP ticket. Afterall, the Dems offered their first black Presidential candidate and the GOP had their first female VP candidate. Instead, true to their ideology, they went out of their way to destroy her candidacy, and continued to do so even after her defeat. Is there any doubt that had Palin been a Democratic candidate, they would have praised her?
Cause for Media Meltdown
March 25, 2009 - 15:16 ET by nofateA little off topic, but I just watched this video at American Thinker, "If Republicans Had Any Guts", of Daniel Hannan, a conservative member of Parliament that our pols all need to watch. Where are the conservative members of our House or Senate that would stand up and say this to Obama and his henchmen? Instead our Republican so-called conservatives use Rush, Hannity, and Levin for cover so they don't have to appear to nakedly against Obama. Do you want Obama to succeed or not??? Where's your balls??? Shriveled up inside, it looks like. Kudos to Mr. Hannan. How does this relate to the media?- duh!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Watch Hannan
March 25, 2009 - 15:31 ET by GalvanicDaniel Hannan is a British Member of the European Parliament, and a breath of fresh air. In an interview with Fox News today, Neil Cavuto asked him whom he would've voted for had he been able to vote in the 2008 US Election. Hannan replied, "Ron Paul." Hannan added that the European infatuation with Obama gives them cover to hand out their own bail-outs. "Afterall, Obama is doing it, so we can't be wrong."
He's one of the very few politcians anywhere who actually reasons and speaks like an adult. I hope his future is bright in British politics.
I'd welcome a Hanna-Obama debate.
nofate and Galv... I
March 25, 2009 - 15:45 ET by bigtimernofate and Galv...
I heard him (Hannan) on Rush today...
Three Cheers go up from me! Now...if we could get some repub leader to take a lesson...
Rush also played some of Jindal's speech today to a repub party fund-raiser I think it was for the congressional offices in the House...anyway job well done by him too.
Thanks for the link.
Tom...this is rich...what
March 25, 2009 - 15:50 ET by bigtimerTom...this is rich...what great news to read for the day.
Of course the msm will never blame their bias/hpocrisy...just like the decline in the print...they refuse to blame themselves.
...and to top it off....people are sick and tired of seeing O everywhere all the time, with his same old whine, same old leftist blathering...simple as that.
LOL
March 25, 2009 - 16:03 ET by jackie3I guess the "Messiah Obama" TV show is a flop on all 3 networks.
Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican government. Real liberty is
never found in the despotism or in the extremes of a Democracy."
The increased viewers right
March 25, 2009 - 16:09 ET by MidAmericaThe increased viewers right after the election would have been the voters who had 'hope' that the gamble they took with electing obama would turn out well. It hasn't. They now do not like to watch what they have done. We should round them up and force them to watch and consider their crime against the country.
Networks'd gain viewers IF they asked good questions
March 25, 2009 - 16:42 ET by ekslibI'd love to hear Obama's answer to this question.
Obama vows to 'kill' Osama, targets Pakistan
http://tinyurl.com/c6kb23
But it all pales in
March 25, 2009 - 16:58 ET by RR GOPBut it all pales in comparison to the forward March of Socialism.
They surely feel it's worth the price.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
These dolts at the network
March 25, 2009 - 16:59 ET by midnight cowboyThese dolts at the network news are too stupid by half. They are too dumb to realize that the typical Obama voter doesn't watch news as is traditionally known. If you can get them away from their text messaging, twitter, facebook's, video games, I-pod's, you-tube, my space, Wii's and so forth, maybe just maybe they will tune in to the daily show for news. Meanwhile a more responsible segment of the population has been turning to Fox for news. So basically the network news sold their soul to the devil to became the Obama orgasmatron. Pretty soon the sham-wow guy will have more viewers than Katie.
ABC-CBS- NBC-still sesame street!
March 25, 2009 - 18:03 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby I bet they ask for a bailout. LET THE ONE SIDED MEDIA FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Real confusion
March 25, 2009 - 21:29 ET by zachlindDon’t really know that much about Charlie Gibson but I’m convinced Brian Williams slept his way to the top. As far as Perk Perk is concern, I’m still confused about what CBS is trying to do.
Does The World Really Need Five Liberal News Outlets
March 26, 2009 - 15:20 ET by deerjerkydaveWhen it comes to TV news, does America really need FIVE liberal partisan news outlets? Americans don't think so which is why their ratings plummet. The fact that Foxnews is successful should say something to the executives at liberally slanted news organizations. The fact that they refuse to change suggests to me that these organizations are much more partisan to the left than people realize. The execs at these "news" organizations are truly ideologues, they would rather clutch their liberalism to their ratings graves before *gasp* turning to more conservative voices in America.