Cable news sees writing on the wall
As audiences shrink, channels must justify their expense, which is getting harder as media become more diffuse.
The audiences for Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC are waning. In fact, the ratings are downright depressing. As Jack Shafer of Reuters noted, CNN recently attracted its smallest prime-time audience since September 1991, with the fewest viewers in the coveted 25-to-54 demographic since July 2008.
The audience at MSNBC declined last year after the abrupt departure of Keith Olbermann. Viewership has rebounded since, and MSNBC has maintained its lead over CNN in prime time. Rachel Maddow, an Olbermann protégé, "brought in the highest ratings on her network's prime-time lineup in both demo and total viewers -- and fared better than the prime-time lineups at CNN and HLN" in demo and total viewers, according to Mediaite. Nonetheless, MSNBC is facing the same pressures as its rivals.
According to Shafer, the first signs that the cable news audience had peaked appeared in a March 2011 study by the Pew Research Center, which showed that the combined median viewership for CNN, Fox News and MSNBC had plunged 16% that year to 3.2 million. That was the first drop in median audience for the channels since 2006.
The problems facing the cable news business are not new. Viewers flock to the channels when there is huge news such as the Casey Anthony trial and tune out in droves when the show is over. Efforts to attract more viewers in prime time have come up short.
Take Piers Morgan. The former tabloid news editor was brought in by CNN last year because the ratings for his predecessor, Larry King, had plunged for years. Executives at the Time Warner channel surely were expecting better.
"Last week, 'Piers Morgan Tonight' averaged 429,000 total viewers," according to the Los Angeles Times. "How bad is that? Well, Morgan's show premiered in January 2011 with 2.1 million. And his predecessor, Larry King, was averaging 657,000 in late 2010 -- a level that was considered unacceptable at the time."
The well-spoken Brit, though, is a ratings juggernaut compared with "Anderson Cooper 360," which averages a "catastrophic" 95,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 demographic, according to the newspaper. It's no wonder that Time Warner brass are reportedly demanding that CNN improve its performance. What's ironic is that CNN's just-the-facts approach is precisely what the public says it wants. The reality is that they prefer the opinionated broadcasts of Fox and MSNBC.
Fox remains both the ratings and money leader in the cable news wars. The Project for Excellence in Journalism estimates that the Rupert Murdoch channel earned $869.2 million in 2011, up 12% from 2010. CNN and sister network HLN earned $595.8 million, while MSNBC earned $186.6 million, both gains of about 11%.
News Corp. reportedly spent more than $700 million on gathering news at Fox News in 2011, ahead of its rivals. These figures will likely increase this year because of the Olympics and the presidential election. But times are changing.
The cable news channels are going to have to justify their expense, which is becoming increasingly difficult as the media world becomes more diffuse.
Jonathan Berr does not own shares of the listed companies.
Why doesn't the article cite how Fox News picks up the viewers that CNN and MSNBC loses?
1. We want our news sources to tell us the news, not tell us what to think.
2. We want our news panelist to discuss things intelligently, professionally, and in an adult manner. No more of this talking heads trying to talk over each other ****.
3. Regardless of our own political agenda, NEWS should only report what's actually happening, not try and opinionate against/for any political/social agenda.
Every time I try and watch one of the big 3, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox, they without fail will have talking heads espousing their preferred political position, or decrying the opposing position, and again without fail if more than one person is on it will devolve into a who can talk over whom the loudest, who can be witties... It's damn annoying and it insults our intelligence, and it certainly is NOTHING like what we group up with in news.
Anyone working in news media today should be EMBARRASSED!
Like one of the earlier posters stated, cable news biggest problem is that there is only so much news in a day and it gets rehashed ad nauseum. Also, most of the pundits only invite people who are going to agree with them and if the guest doesn't, he or she is shouted down, talked over and/or ridiculed. It might make for "good" TV but it is rude and turns me off. Of all the pundits on cable news channels, I prefer to watch Rachel Maddow because she is willing to listen to viewpoints other than her own and not shout down or talk over her guests all the time.
Who wants to look at ugly people vomiting facts I could just read online?
It's just easier to not fuss with that darn channel changer and keep being fed Murdoch's tainted swill read by cross-eyed FAUX blondes.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
The stock rises 9% after the company reveals strong second-quarter results.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.