What do Rachel Maddow's ratings and lesbian sex have in common? Dive.Danny Shea Huff Post: "Friday's (May 15) program drew just 763,000 total viewers, setting a new series low. Friday's program also drew Maddow's smallest Adults 25-54 audience ever, averaging just 163,000 demo viewers. Maddow did, however, beat Larry King on Friday, who averaged just 645,000 total viewers."
Rachel's recent numbers are a far cry from her October high.
Any speculation as to why Rachel's going down faster than Rosie O'Donnell?
She's not an original and come to think of it, not a heckuva lot of incite comes out of her mouth?
ReplyDeleteOr, we'd rather watch fiction on TV than fact? Or? Newsies get sick and tired of hearing spin and hyperbole before going nighty-night? Or?
Olberman doesn't really have a twin? Or? She's just a mirror into the less than fantastic numbers most left of center talkers have? Or? She's not very entertaining? or....
Rachael does fine. TV shows take time to become part of a routine. We're looking at this in the speeded-up/do-it-now mentality but even TV has a lag time.
ReplyDeleteDid I just spin that?
Because...she sucks!
ReplyDeletePat,
ReplyDeleteDid you just spin that? Like a top.
Bottom line Rachel's 15 minutes of fame may be coming to a close. Other than continuous sarcasm she adds nothing to any discussion of issues.
ReplyDeletesubmaster..........doubt it
ReplyDeletePat,
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case it doesn't explain Glenn Becks numbers straight out of the box, and he does it at 5:00 in the afternoon. Really she was a novelty that wore off real fast, like novelties are known to do.
Given what works (Keith, Glenn) and what doesn't (Rachel, Ed), I think it may simply be that Keith and Glenn are borderline mental cases. And why do we watch those? Well, I don't, very much.
ReplyDeleteBeck has great numbers @ 5PM because it's senior citizens watching FNC. They don't work, and have nothing better to do but allow Beck to scare/entertain (?) them half to death. As far as Maddow, she needs to get a personality. Sarcasm only takes you so far. She was great on the campaign shows because there were other people, and she didn't have time to annoy you. She needs a partner...(not in that way)!
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Pat. It took Olbermann several years to get decent numbers after he took over in 2003 from the dying Jerry Nachman.
ReplyDeleteChiller makes some sense.
Wonder what Jerry would think of MSNBC now.
ReplyDeleteFrom emailer WM: You wanted to know why Rachel is dropping in ratings. here's my spin. the first time i saw her was as a guest on Tucker Carlson's show. i tuned in midway and didn't know whether she was a man or woman. kind of like Pat on Saturday Night Live. then she got the show with all the hoopla. turns out she is a lightweight Olbermann with less vitriol. i don't think she can carry a one hour show every night. she discusses lots of gay issues, too many gay issues. since 90% of tv viewers are probably straight this issue is not relevant to them.
ReplyDeletei think Olbermann is losing ratings because he only has guests who agree with him. there's no conflict, no suspense, no theatre. Even though O'Reilly is a pompous ass he has theatre every night. that's why i watch him. it's good tv. Olbermann just can't seem to forget George Bush. He's still bashing the guy. it's old news, nobody gives a shit about W anymore. lastly, in his Worst Persons segment it seems every night O'Reilly is one of the 3. one night he got 2 of 3. Boring, real boring.
I astral-projected to Jerry's new newsroom on Krypton where George Reeves as Clark Kent, Jack Larson as Jimmy Olsen, John Hamilton as Perry White, Noel Neill as Lois Lane, dwell.
ReplyDeleteJerry told me that he died for their sins. MSNBC's sins. I'm going to see if I can resume the conversation tonight...