Paying a Price For Bias? MSNBC Drops to Fourth Place in Crucial Ratings Demo in July

Oh, how the pathetic progs have fallen.

Earlier today, the Hollywood Reporter told readers that MSNBC had a horrible July rating period. For the four weeks ended July 27, the self-described "lean forward" network saw "its total day average among the news demo of adults 25-54" drop by "33 percent from July 2013," causing it come in "below HLN by 16,000 viewers for No. 4 status":


... To be sure, it wasn't a particularly outstanding month for most of the networks. In primetime and total day, CNN, MSNBC and HLN all were off double digits in the targeted demographic compared to a year ago. FNC, which easily retains the top slot, had the benefit of being up a tick (2 percent) in primetime for an average 299,000 adults 25-54.

... in the evening, Rachel Maddow was only marginally improved from her lowest month ever in June, averaging 181,000 viewers in the key demo. (FNC's Megyn Kelly, by contrast, enjoyed her second-highest-rated month since launch with an especially strong 386,000 adults 25-54.)

Media Bistro notes that MSNBC "at least" held onto second place in primetime and third in full-day among all viewers (a related graphic is here):

Fox News was the top cable news network for the month of July, placing third in primetime and fifth in total day among all ad-supported cable networks. FNC averaged 1,799,000 primetime viewers and 1,024,000 total day viewers.

MSNBC placed 31st in primetime and 33rd in total day, respectively. The network drew 550,000 primetime viewers and 318,000 total day viewers. CNN placed 33rd in primetime and 27th in total day, respectively. The network delivered 514,000 primetime viewers and 402,000 total day viewers.

So why is this happening? Is it bias or sloppiness? The answer is "yes."

On the bias front, what reasonable viewer is going to put up with garbage like Ari Melber's haranguing of Senators Rand Paul and Cory Booker (Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters covered this earlier today)?

Melber resurrected the tired canard that Paul opposed parts of the Civil Rights Act. Dude, Rand Paul was just shy of 18 months old when Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. MSNBC's own graphics of a supposedly damning 2010 interview only say that he would have "tried to modify" one of its ten provisions had he been a legislator at the time. That doesn't mean he would have voted against the law at crunch time, and Paul has repeatedly said he would have voted for it — just after getting fed his formula, I guess.

Melber wanted Booker to call the war on druges racist in intent, and seemed quite displeased that Booker would only acknowledge its disparate impact.

As to sloppiness — well, it's pretty hard to top the following item from "Morning Joe" (HT Washington Free Beacon):

 

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski is having a tough Wednesday.

After interviewing Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, Brzezinski said “keep it right here on Morning Jew.”

The longer MSNBC stays a very distant third or fourth, the better.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer
Tom Blumer is a contributing editor for NewsBusters.