Democrats and Pundits Out of Touch with New Media Reality by Publius Tacitus

Why is Donald Trump winning? It is not because he has some a warm, charming personality. Nope. He understands the 21st Century media reality. That also explains why the Democrats and so many pundits who opine on politics are getting things wrong. The Dems and their pundit lackeys are living with a 1970s view of the media. They do not understand that ship has sailed.

Look first at the numbers of viewers for last night's State of the Union speech. This tells part of the story:

FOXNEWS 11,500,000

NBC               7,100,000

CBS                7,000,000

ABC                5,400,000

FOX                3,600,000

CNN                3,100,000

MSNBC           2,700,000

 That's a total of 40,300,000 viewers. Sounds like a lot. But when you consider the fact that the population in America is approaching 330 million, that's only 12 percent of the population. 

Let's take this to the level of who watches news. There is the assumption among those who turn on FOX or CNN or MSNBC that these outlets are influential in helping set policy and inform political opinion. That may have been true 30 years ago, but it is no longer the case.

Consider these facts.

Twenty-seven million to 29 million viewers, on average, tuned in every night [in the 1970s) to hear Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News. Today, though, the viewership of evening news programs on CBS, NBC and ABC combined is smaller than CBS' when Cronkite sat in the anchor's chair. The total numbers for CBS, NBC and ABC approached 49 million.

During the hottest days of the 2016 Presidential campaign, the number of viewers was dramatically lower: 

NBC     8,037,000

ABC     7,934,000

CBS    6,557,000

FOXNEWS  2,900,000

MSNBC        1,606,000

CNN              1,029,000

TOTAL--28,063,000

Let those numbers sink in. In 1972, when the US population was approaching 210 million, almost 23% of the population watched the evening news. Today the number of people watching news shows has dropped to 8.5% of the population.

Here's another curveball. Rush Limbaugh. According to his latest ratings, 26 million people are listening to him on a daily basis.

Ponder that for a moment. Rush Limbaugh has almost as many listeners as all of the the Cable News and Network news broadcasts combined. 

I think this is what Donald Trump understands. He realizes that the talking head media and panels of ignorant pundits are really an anachronism. No longer relevant to a world where most people do not read books. Instead, their heads are bent over scanning the latest headline to flash across the screen of their ironically named "smart phone." Yes, the phones are far smarter than the average citizen strolling the streets of any community in America.

I suspect that many of you that read this blog are the shrinking minority of those who tune in to watch cable news shoes. Some of you may even double up and watch something on one of the old network news slots. But please understand that you are an oddity. You do not represent the average voter nor the average citizen.

This is the danger we face--there is no longer an authoritative source of news that enjoys the confidence much less awareness of a significant plurality of voters. Ignorance and disinformation prevail. That's why, in part I believe, Trump continues to be more effective and to run circles around the conventional media.

Comments

[Morongobill]

Perhaps your side might get with the times and learn how to condense something to its selling points, as the Donald does with his tweets.
Even a long novel can be summarized.

This spoken by a longtime book lover, reading most on Kindle though nowadays.

[LeaNder]

great feedback, Bandolero.

[Eric Newhill]

AEL #9

"You can advertise on his network for pennies
($1000 on weekends, $8000 - 16,0000 during the week).

There is no way you can reach 26,000,000 people for that price."

Nice try. I love it when Canadian SJWs tell us all about America.

One reason advertising on the Rush show is so inexpensive is because liberal companies boycott advertising. Their SJW consumers, in typical PC fashion, demand that Rush be silenced and they use the typical leftist tactic of attempting to cut off the life blood ($).

In response, Rush lowered the cost, which makes it much more challenging for companies to pass up exposure to his tens of millions of listeners. This counter tactic has not been entirely successful as many loyal listeners now complain about the volume of ads on the show. Rush is making up for lower price by increasing volume.

[shepherd]

I agree and don't. Trump is super effective at using modern media, and Twitter in particular. But the data here has some problems.

Ok, modern media basics. Right now, American consumers are in a state of great flux when it comes to how and where they consumer television and other content—and not just across wealthy, young, or liberal demographics. In general, we’re seeing a move away from traditional broadcast and cable towards more a la carte and OTT (Internet-delivered) options. This is happening for a wide range of reasons, most of them related to cost and convenience.

The numbers PT cites are likely Nielsen numbers. They are derived from people who allow a device to be installed on their televisions that enables Nielsen to see what shows they are watching. They only collect data for traditional cable and broadcast television, but they are valuable because they designate an audience which likely sits through commercials.

However, these numbers are not useful otherwise, because fewer and fewer Americans watch TV that way. Even demographics like seniors are cutting cords because cable is so expensive. As a result, you get things like the erroneous perception that viewership for American football is in major decline. Rather, broadcast TV is in decline, along with American football’s share of it. Most of us who watch this sort of thing (i.e. the people who buy ads) do not believe that viewership is declining.

Why? Because we have clues. Super Bowl ads, which are priced by supply and demand, are projected to set a record this year for cost. More importantly, things like Amazon’s Alexa measure the number and time people are spending on various websites, including streaming video from things like CNN on Internet TV services. Here we see a quite different picture from the one Nielsen paints. The top five news media outlets in the US by this measure are CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo, and MSN. CNN, in particular, is a monster.

In other words, CNN may not have many traditional TV viewers, but the overall consumption of its TV content remains very high. It’s just done through other means not captured by traditional metrics.

Should you draw any conclusions from this? Not really. If I could tell you what’s really happening in media, I’d be making $10 million a year. The only thing I’d advise is not looking too closely at any one metric, especially if it supports your biases.

[steve]

You are kind of correct, but also wrong. Sales have been trending down a bit, but sometimes pop up. It is harder to track in some ways with he advent of E-books, but it looks to me like reading is now more concentrated into specific groups. The wife and I have done some volunteer work in our area up in coal country. Lots of poverty up there. The schools are often in bad shape. The libraries? Decimated. Talk with the teachers and principals, it is clear lots of these kids aren't reading very much at all. It certainly seems much different than the poor rural areas in which I grew up. Even at the worst schools 50 years ago, there were always books and reading was encouraged.

Steve

[Greco]

They're still finding a relatively large audience, but it's via the late night comics, e.g., fake newscasters like Stephen Colbert and John Oliver.

[Fred]

johnf,

"reading choices for the young are no longer decided by an elite in New York. Literary fiction is dying, much more critical political writing now centres around Sci Fi, Fantasy, and other genres. ...critical political writing now centres around Sci Fi, Fantasy, and other genres." No. The gate keepers in publishing are overwhelmingly women, and mosttly young women. Guess what kind of collegiate educations they have and from where. Just what appeal are their selections going to have a US readership?

[AndreL]

Since we are looking at media statistics and also discussing the significance of books, "Fire and Fury" seems as proportionally popular among bookworms as Rush to the AM radio junkies.

[turcopolier]

All

I look forward to Luis V Gutierrez taking his proper place as a member of the Mexican Congress. pl

[Charles]

For a man who is "as ignorant of the written word as they are.",
here is a page of his published works. All of them incorporate the written word ( or at least the typeset word )
https://www.amazon.com/Donald-J.-Trump/e/B001H6O8M2/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1517498855&sr=1-2-ent

[Flavius]

I have been wrestling with the question "What is news?" for at least the last decade. The bout started in earnest when I realized I no longer needed to read the NYT, a habit of 40 years, because I already knew what the opinion pages were going to say and the magic wand of selection was tranforming the front pages into a facsimile of the back pages. I cancelled the paper.
A few later I cancelled the WSJ because I had tired of the relentless war mongering by neo-con stooges who were never held accountable for having gotten things wrong, which seemingly was always and about everything.
50 years ago we had Time and Newsweek in our house all the time. One day my older brother, the smartest person I have ever known, said to me "the more I know about something, the less Time seems to know."
I don't know how The Donald tunes his political fork. I suspect that it is not by listening to the NYT/WP/MSM crowd that has them all so apoplectic. He is neither of them or by them. I'm guessing that after more than a year and a half, he considers himself fortunate in having them as his enemies. They have about punched themselves out.
Whatever happens, Trump deserves much credit for having unmasked the partisan news celebrities and the more grotesque version of the same in the so called 'entertainment' industry, 'famous for being famous,' as has been said, for the bellowing self absorbed fools they are.
Whatever 'news' is, the news industry will never be the same and will never hold sway over big government the way it has in the recent past. At least I hope it doesn't.

[Publius Tacitus]

Shepherd,
Nice try. Deal with actual facts. I provided links. This was not my opinion. Let me point you to other metrics. The number of people employed by CNN and MSNBC and ABC and CBS and NBC has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. We've seen the same with the print media. Their circulation is down and the number of reporters employed is down by as much as 50%. And you want to argue that more are watching and paying attention? Good luck with that.

One more point. The late Night Shows on ABC, CBS and NBC are equally irrelevant. Total viewers ? 9 million.

[Bill H]

"The more division there is on race, gender and sexuality etc, etc." The Democratic Party calls it "identity politics."

[LeaNder]

Eric #28, I have seen to many ways to deal with measurements to support your assumptions on this.

But I would appreciate a link to Rush. Without guarantee that I will follow what might be one of your opinion leaders. That is.

[Sid Finster]

Nielsen/Arbitron - how does it work?

[rjj]

Thanks for the caveats, Shepherd.

Why the histrionics, PT??

[Fred]

LeaNder,

"Kennedy III. Could you give me a hint, what you consider the most significant part?"

Kennedy III. Personally I'm holding out for Kennedy XIV, who will really bring the sunshine to the Presidency.

[Fred]

AEL,

"There is no way you can reach 26,000,000 people for that price."

You're right. That would mean the $1,000 doesn't get an add on every radio station that broadcasts Rush. Which particular stations do you want to advertise on? Failure to understand micro-targeting is how the boy wonder Robby Mook blew threw a $billion running Hilary's campaign. Of course the politically connected who needed to be paid got their cut of that but then that's another objective of political spending entirely.

[TimmyB]

I get my news from many of the sites you listed. I also enjoy Naked Capitalism, Information Clearinghouse, and Zero Hedge.

Has anyone here actually watched their local news lately? I have, and it's awful. The stories are 25% car crashes, crimes and other accidents/fires of the "if it bleeds, it leads" variety. The rest is corporate public relations puff pieces, and Internet video clips. Oh, and local sports. The national news is the same, just a little better produced.

In sum, there is absolutely nothing in the local or national news that provides a voter with the necessary information they need so thay can exercise their right to vote in a responsible manner.

[TimmyB]

I really don't understand the response to Shepard. All I got from his or her long response is that clips from CNN and other tv news stations may be circulated via the Internet, which would be undetected by tv ratings services.

Here are some actual facts. Trump remains unpopular with a majority of Americans.

And people were first fired from newspaper and tv news departments 20-years ago so that shareholders could make a few more bucks. Newspapers were in trouble prior to the Internet boom because they decided to put out a worse product in search of higher profits. Instead of increasing profits, they drove customers away.

Here is the ultimate truth about our tv, radio and Internet news media. You and I are the product being sold. The money these media outlets make comes from capturing our eyeballs, ears and clicks and then selling our attention to advertisers. The actual product being sold is the audience. And we, the audience, are being sold to advertisers.

[Eric Newhill]

LeanNder,
I don't follow opinion leaders. I form my own perspectives.

I have listened to Rush maybe three times over the past 20 years or so. Each time when driving across country and when there was no good music on the radio - also out of curiosity. The last time I listened to him, it was maybe for an hour or more and he began to cause me to have a giant headache what with all the bombastic yelling and carrying on.

I only appreciate Rush (and Hannity) as allies in the war to preserve our country and freedom against leftists.

[TV]

Kennedy and Gabbard: the triumph of looks over brains.

[Anna]

Mourning a great man, Robert Parry: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/01/outpouring-of-support-honors-robert-parry/
Journalist Caitlin Johnstone wrote, “I would suggest that it is [an] underlying devotion to the plight of mankind which allowed Robert Parry to become Robert Parry. It wasn’t his connections, his political opinions, his ideas, or even his raw talent; it was the fact that he cared so much. The fact that he couldn’t dissociate himself from the horrors of this world, the evil things humans are doing to one another and the omnicidal trajectory we appear to be headed along. He saw it all, he felt it all, and he let it move him.”

[Walker]

Mourning a great man, Robert Parry. . .

Robert Parry was a great man.

[Richardstevenhack]

Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran follows up his piece yesterday with the revelation that there is a SECOND "Trump Dossier" - of equally disreputable sources - being floated to try to bolster the original Steele dossier.

As publication of GOP memo looms panic grips Washington
http://theduran.com/publication-of-gop-memo-approaches-panic-grips-washington/

The new dossier is revealed by The Guardian. But even Steele won't vouch for it, although he appears to have had a hand in the FBI's obtaining it. It's basically the same rehash of the Trump Moscow lewd acts story which immediately discredits it.

The production of this second dossier illustrates how panicked Washington is over the memo.