Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   The viewership for President Obama's State of the Union speech dropped sharply, with only 33 million people tuning in. And to make matters worse, the most-watched network for the speech was Fox News   (deadline.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup, State of the Union, President Obama, Fox News, Family-friendliness, viewership, SOTU, speeches  
•       •       •

708 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2014 at 9:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-30 12:31:31 AM  

vabeard: farking Duck Dynasty?  At the SOTUA?  This country is worse off than I ever thought.


I hope this really bites the GOP in the ass the next time those assholes say and/or do something asinine.
 
2014-01-30 12:33:41 AM  

rewind2846: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: FNC led in cable news.

Though I have to really wonder how good these numbers are, given that I suspect both the Neilsen traditional numbers and the household surveys skew heavily towards older, more traditional viewers.

Which is, of course, also why FNC always has such high viewership numbers on cable.

Well the numbers work like this:
Suppose there were 100 people. 20 of those people watch FNC and nothing else, while 60 people spread their viewing among ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, and we'll even toss in UNIVISION for the spanish speaking audience. We'll also give 20 viewers over to the "didn't watch at all" category.  If the spread is even, each network will have 7.5 viewers. FNC will then be able to claim that their viewership was 167% higher than any other network, and the numbers will bear this out, even if only 1 in 5 people watched the speech on their channel.

The issue is their single focus, which attracts an audience of simpletons willing to believe whatever rolls across the screen, as long as it aligns with their worldview. These inbreds are loyal to distraction, and FNC knows it. Facts, science, reality, grammar... who needs that sh*t as long as they're told exactly what they want to hear.

FNC's numbers aren't high, they are concentrated.

Well-stated.  I'm going to save this for a while.
 
2014-01-30 12:41:06 AM  

cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.


Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.
 
2014-01-30 12:41:41 AM  

Last Man on Earth: If they didn't, that would also explain why Fox had the highest ratings, since I'd expect the web viewers to skew younger, traditionally a less conservative demographic.  There's also the punditry angle, as people who are more interested in what Obama had to say on his own would tune in to C-SPAN or whitehouse.gov's streams, while Republicans might be more interested in the conservative pundits' refutation of the speech than in the speech itself, therefore favoring the networks.


I'm young, liberal, and I always watch Fox for these sorts of things. They're just the funniest.

2012 Fox News election night coverage definitely ranks in my top 10 favorite tv-watching experiences of all time.
 
2014-01-30 12:49:43 AM  
At some point, the ratings are going to have to be adjusted for OTHER than TV networks.

Yup. Folks are still watching broadcast TV. Not everyone who watched or listened bothered with broadcast TV.
 
2014-01-30 01:07:16 AM  

Without Fail: [pbs.twimg.com image 800x500]


LAUGHED MY ASS OFF.
 
2014-01-30 01:15:28 AM  

rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.


More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.
 
2014-01-30 01:20:38 AM  
Obama Green Lantern Theory detected.
 
2014-01-30 01:26:45 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: "But Fox News is losing younger viewers at an even faster rate than its competitors. With a median viewer age now at 68 according to Nielsen data through mid-January (compared with 60 for MSNBC and CNN, and 62 to 64 for the broadcast networks), Fox is in essence a retirement community." Link


Wait, so could we just let them cut medicare for 10-15 years and then fix it once their base is dead?
 
2014-01-30 01:28:09 AM  
Not so surprising, subby. A lot more people are ditching their televisions. Many of us are checking out his speech on YouTube later if we feel like it.
 
2014-01-30 01:39:55 AM  

djkutch: NewportBarGuy: I was jerking off to porn. Did I miss anything?

That Biden smile. I hope I haven't ruined future endeavors.


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-30 01:48:13 AM  

cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.



You talk an awful lot about circle jerks. Are you trying to tell us something?

NTTAWWT.
 
2014-01-30 02:01:21 AM  

whidbey: Not so surprising, subby. A lot more people are ditching their televisions. Many of us are checking out his speech on YouTube later if we feel like it.


Skookum still not gainfully employed after all the years and mooching off the free WiFi.
 
2014-01-30 03:56:10 AM  

cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.


Oh yeah, Clinton/Gingrich is an excellent example of a smooth across-the-aisle relationship. You should definitely run with that.
 
2014-01-30 04:39:07 AM  
I'm something of a comic book fan, and have never heard of such a thing before your post. So I did a bit of googling. I think the only president we've had in the past hundred years who might possibly pass muster as a GL would be Eisenhower.
 
2014-01-30 04:44:55 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama Green Lantern Theory detected.


robohobo: I'm something of a comic book fan, and have never heard of such a thing before your post. So I did a bit of googling. I think the only president we've had in the past hundred years who might possibly pass muster as a GL would be Eisenhower.


Stupid JAVA! I swear the Fark java allowances have changed.
 
2014-01-30 05:03:58 AM  

robohobo: I'm something of a comic book fan, and have never heard of such a thing before your post. So I did a bit of googling. I think the only president we've had in the past hundred years who might possibly pass muster as a GL would be Eisenhower.


See, I would have said Teddy Roosevelt.
 
2014-01-30 05:13:38 AM  

Weatherkiss: robohobo: I'm something of a comic book fan, and have never heard of such a thing before your post. So I did a bit of googling. I think the only president we've had in the past hundred years who might possibly pass muster as a GL would be Eisenhower.

See, I would have said Teddy Roosevelt.


Ooh, maybe. He certainly wasn't a puss. Perhaps I should amend to say that certainly no president AFTER Eisenhower would have a shot.  But that's a societal thing.
 
2014-01-30 05:14:06 AM  

Weatherkiss: Teddy Roosevelt


100 years, not 105.
 I know- math is hard . .... I walked by my lodgers room while he was watching the repeat, and he basically was saying  lets see what this ass has to say .  Later I heard him saying he liked it, best he had heard in a long time, etc.
 
2014-01-30 05:18:29 AM  

alienated: Weatherkiss: Teddy Roosevelt

100 years, not 105.
 I know- math is hard . .... I walked by my lodgers room while he was watching the repeat, and he basically was saying  lets see what this ass has to say .  Later I heard him saying he liked it, best he had heard in a long time, etc.


I seem to have a habit of rounding numbers instead of precise ones.
 
2014-01-30 05:25:03 AM  
But in addition to Eisenhower (since Theodore Roosevelt doesn't count by 5 years) , I'd suggest Gerald Ford would have made a good Green Lantern given his interest in scouting, football, and his WW2 service. Plus he's the president who holds the record for living the longest.
 
2014-01-30 05:25:37 AM  

Weatherkiss: alienated: Weatherkiss: Teddy Roosevelt

100 years, not 105.
 I know- math is hard . .... I walked by my lodgers room while he was watching the repeat, and he basically was saying  lets see what this ass has to say .  Later I heard him saying he liked it, best he had heard in a long time, etc.

I seem to have a habit of rounding numbers instead of precise ones.


No worries. I do like Teddy for one thing - National Parks. Regardless of all the other crap - he set aside places to remain pristine, or at least not built up / drilled on. And that means a lot to me. Yellowstone in the morning ... there is nothing else like it on this planet, imho .
 
2014-01-30 05:27:18 AM  
There's that damned 'liberal media' out there brainwashing the sheeple again.
 
2014-01-30 05:28:05 AM  

alienated: Yellowstone in the morning ... there is nothing else like it on this planet, imho .


And there won't be anything else on this planet when it erupts, for what that's worth. :P
 
2014-01-30 05:31:43 AM  

Weatherkiss: alienated: Yellowstone in the morning ... there is nothing else like it on this planet, imho .

And there won't be anything else on this planet when it erupts, for what that's worth. :P


There are places in Siberia that come close, but, you are right.
 
2014-01-30 06:02:06 AM  
Is it just me, or is Uncle Joe sporting one hell of a comb-over?
 
2014-01-30 06:07:50 AM  

Weatherkiss: alienated: Yellowstone in the morning ... there is nothing else like it on this planet, imho .

And there won't be anything else on this planet when it erupts, for what that's worth. :P


You have never seen Obetz at sunset. It's breathtaking.
 
2014-01-30 06:10:12 AM  
Meh... I always read the transcript the next day.

There's hockey to watch at night and I couldn't care less about the talking heads' "Analysis".
 
2014-01-30 06:42:33 AM  

cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.


Hmm. The difference being that Obama tried to work with the Republicans, but they negotiated in bad faith and publicly (publicly, on the record, mind) that they would not do business as long as Obama was President. Your revisionism doesn't work unless your audience is ignorant.
 
2014-01-30 06:46:30 AM  

Mike_1962: cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.

Hmm. The difference being that Obama tried to work with the Republicans, but they negotiated in bad faith and publicly (publicly, on the record, mind) that they would not do business as long as Obama was President. Your revisionism doesn't work unless your audience is ignorant.


I love how these braying jackasses conveniently forget that little detail.
 
2014-01-30 06:54:02 AM  

Tarkus: I caught it on whitehouse.gov


Whitehouse.com had better videos
 
2014-01-30 07:05:51 AM  

keylock71: Mike_1962: cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.

Hmm. The difference being that Obama tried to work with the Republicans, but they negotiated in bad faith and publicly (publicly, on the record, mind) that they would not do business as long as Obama was President. Your revisionism doesn't work unless your audience is ignorant.

I love how these braying jackasses conveniently forget that little detail.


Indeed.  In the House especially, they're doing nothing, and proud of that.
 
2014-01-30 07:33:58 AM  

Alphax: keylock71: Mike_1962: cchris_39: rebelyell2006: cchris_39: People are tired of the campaign speech and blame game and ready for results.

Unfortunately, that is all we get out of Republicans. Nothing but blaming the President and obstructing governance in the name of trying to appeal to voters for the next election.

More blame game? I guess thanks for illustrating my point so promptly?

Clinton worked with Gingrich. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil. You don't have to have super majorities in both houses to govern. You do have to get off your ass and realize it's not a meeting of the young ivy league pinhead Marxist circle jerkers.

Hmm. The difference being that Obama tried to work with the Republicans, but they negotiated in bad faith and publicly (publicly, on the record, mind) that they would not do business as long as Obama was President. Your revisionism doesn't work unless your audience is ignorant.

I love how these braying jackasses conveniently forget that little detail.

Indeed.  In the House especially, they're doing nothing, and proud of that.


TDS covered this well last night
 
2014-01-30 07:51:37 AM  

Animatronik: sobriquet by any other name: Omahawg: didn't you hear? he announced he's now a DICTATOR 'cause EXECUTIVE ORDER

or at least that's what's going around facebook

Total Executive Orders:

Obama: 168
Bushie: 290
Clinton: 363
Reagan:  380

We get it, he's black

It's what's in the orders, not the quantity.

/should be obvious


I find it hard to believe you've adequately examined the contents of all 1200+ EO's mentioned and compared their relative merits.  But in case you did, who was the 'best' and who was the 'worst' re: EO's in your opinion?
 
2014-01-30 08:09:13 AM  

Last Man on Earth: I came to ask whether they took online viewing into account, but I see it's been taken care of.  If they didn't, that would also explain why Fox had the highest ratings, since I'd expect the web viewers to skew younger, traditionally a less conservative demographic.  There's also the punditry angle, as people who are more interested in what Obama had to say on his own would tune in to C-SPAN or whitehouse.gov's streams, while Republicans might be more interested in the conservative pundits' refutation of the speech than in the speech itself, therefore favoring the networks.


Data sample size of 1, I asked wife who was currently watching Hulu at 8 to pull up the SOTU at 9. She opened up the web stream from fox news. I was like, "why fox news", she was like, "whatever, its the first thing that came up, deal with it.". We turned it off before the "Reply".
 
2014-01-30 08:22:15 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I was jerking off to porn. Did I miss anything?


What were you trying to hit?
 
2014-01-30 08:37:18 AM  
Fox has the most viewers because
a: people who watch Fox News leave their tvs on it 24/7
b: they need to be told what to say about the speech on Facebook and other discussions they participate in
c: they have to have their hate fix like a junkie needs their dope.
 
2014-01-30 08:39:22 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: It's because Fox News digitally added flames PLUS had a picture-in-picture of slow-motion Megyn Kelly leg-crossing action.


img.fark.net
 
2014-01-30 08:39:57 AM  
President Camacho is the best for referencing CostCo.
 
2014-01-30 08:51:12 AM  
Reminds me of the WNBC execs talking about Stern in the early 80's - I'm paraphrasing, but basically those who say they like him listen for 2 hours, those who say they hate him listen for 4.

I stayed away from Facebook that night, so loud was the derp.
 
2014-01-30 08:51:37 AM  
Well if you missed it, he just promised to do all the things he promised to do before but didn't.  You know the old create jobs, build infrastructure, close GITMO type shiat.  He also promised to attack the segments of business that are having success and actually are putting people to work.  Oh, and he wants to spend more money we don't have and he'll go it alone because he still refuses to play well with others.
 
2014-01-30 08:55:18 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Where does this fall on the "Sarah Palin is automatically President" continuum?


Obama has to watch a Duck Dynasty marathon while eating a case of Moon Pies.
 
2014-01-30 08:55:24 AM  

jjorsett: DarkSoulNoHope: The viewership probably dropped because we know what will happen, the President will ask for things, the Republican controlled Congress will roll their eyes and scream class warfare, and nothing will be done by congress to promote the Presidents plan. Instead we'll get another 40 attempts to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, because the black guy made it happen, even though it's mostly what the white guys wanted in the 90s when the Republicans used to offer alternatives (even bad ones) instead of simply obstruction.

I doubt the Repubs will need to keep trying to repeal OBC since it's being repealed in installments by the Death By A Thousand Delays And Exemptions. It'll probably end up like the Medicare Doc Fix: there in theory but put off over and over unto infinity. All that will remain of it will be an unending series of insurance company bailouts due to their actuarial assumptions being destroyed and their bottom lines devastated by the fallout from the shambolic mess that is Obamacare.


Best part... forever?
 
2014-01-30 08:57:29 AM  
There's nothing of value of the SOTU.  The President grandstands and says a bunch of things he isn't obligated to follow up on, and half the room jumps to its feet every five seconds to interrupt with frantic applause.  It's theater, and it isn't even very good theater.
 
2014-01-30 09:06:22 AM  

RevLovejoy: Reminds me of the WNBC execs talking about Stern in the early 80's - I'm paraphrasing, but basically those who say they like him listen for 2 hours, those who say they hate him listen for 4.

I stayed away from Facebook that night, so loud was the derp.


Since I'm acquainted with Sergeant Cory Remsberg, and so are dozens of people on my friends list, my Facebook feed was mostly overjoyed at his presence at the event, even though I remember Cory's father was a Romney supporter.
 
2014-01-30 09:30:36 AM  
The State of the Union address has become a farce. The President makes a pompous speech, is interrupted by members of his own party to thunderous applause while members of the other party sit on their hands and scowl. It is a meaningless ritual.
 
2014-01-30 09:56:45 AM  

A_Listless_Wanderer: Like I said above, I watched it online.
This may be off topic but I have to say it...
I watched Fox News the first time in a few years yesterday afternoon while I was getting some car work done...

Everyone on there spoke like they were talking to elementary schoolers. There were five minutes of "headlines" for news, which included nothing important or interesting going on in the world. Other than that...
There was a piece about the snow storm down south, apparently tailored to people who never heard of snow before.
There was a piece about Queen Liz being broke, because one of her bank accounts may be almost down to a million dollars. This lead into a "poll" about what people are wasting money on.
There was a piece about what reporters ate for lunch at the White House (Obama is still making them eat vegetables!).
They talked about how  paying people the exorbitant sum of $10.00 an hour would make poor rich people go broke.
The rest was talking heads spouting LIBS LIBS LIBS, with some Benghazi's thrown in.
The ads were mostly old geezer insurance, with cash for gold scams and gold for cash scams thrown in.
Oh, and they profiled the Republican "responders" to the SOTU who, as far as I can tell, hardly anyone watched on TV or online...

/"news," huh?


Fox News is always one of the four TVs on in my office cafeteria during lunch (others are CNN, ESPN, and the Weather Channel).  They are on mute, but I always get a laugh (or a grimace) out of the inane headlines and the gold commercials.  "THE NATIONAL DEBT IS SKYROCKETING!  THE DOLLAR IS COLLAPSING! BUY GOLD!"
 
2014-01-30 10:09:14 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: Omahawg: didn't you hear? he announced he's now a DICTATOR 'cause EXECUTIVE ORDER

or at least that's what's going around facebook

Total Executive Orders:

Obama: 168
Bushie: 290
Clinton: 363
Reagan:  380

We get it, he's black


I've unskewed the numbers, and since Obama's orders only count for 3/5ths of a regular President's orders, that means Obama has actually issued, like, 500 Executive Orders.
 
2014-01-30 10:14:30 AM  

Tyee: ....he'll go it alone because he still refuses to play well with others.


What delusional twaddle...
 
2014-01-30 10:39:58 AM  

oryx: The State of the Union address has become a farce. The President makes a pompous speech, is interrupted by members of his own party to thunderous applause while members of the other party sit on their hands and scowl. It is a meaningless ritual.


Plus he eats far too many crackers.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report