So guys, what's it like living in a boring echo chamber nowadays?

annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The "sad, sad" world of cable TV news (and their elderly viewers). Any talk of "the MSM" is, and has been, meaningless.

I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was this bad.

Cable TV 2025 is a sad, sad place​

The folks at NIELSEN are releasing some new weekly reports with their new BIG DATA + PANEL metrics 👏.

And, ok, yes — this isn’t breaking news — but looking at where things stand for the average linear TV audiences on cable TV networks in the final week of September 2025 . . . wow.

The cable bundle has really meaningfully become, as predicted, just sports and news.

More accurately — the cable TV bundle is just ESPN, 3 cable news networks and one lifestyle network on a given evening.

Elsewhere, primetime audience viewership numbers are more brutal than I expected — across the board. Let’s dive in.

The following is from Sept. 22 thru Sept. 28, and just centers on live/same-day audiences (no delayed viewing).

PRIMETIME AUDIENCE AVERAGES
​

NEWS NETWORKS

  • FOX NEWS: 2.45M
  • MSNBC: 853k
  • CNN: 538k
SPORTS . . . meaning ESPN:

  • ESPN: 2.7M
  • FS1’s average was 62k 🫣
ALL OTHER CABLE NETWORKS AVERAGING AT LEAST 400K VIEWERS IN PRIME:

  • HGTV: 492k (49k are under 50 years old)
ALL OTHER CABLE NETWORKS AVERAGING AT LEAST 350K VIEWERS IN PRIME:

  • FOOD: 383k
  • HALLMARK: 378k
  • TLC: 367k
  • fin

SO:
​

In a world with about 60M folks subscribed to / getting most name-brand cable TV networks as part of the TV bundles they pay for each month — only 1 general entertainment network had over 400k viewers on a given night . . . and 4 general entertainment cable TV networks had more than 350k viewers total during the last week of September.

  • That’s about 0.6% of people paying for cable TV watching one of the top 4-rated non-sports or news networks on a given night.
    • Of that, the vast, vast majority of those people are over 50, and mostly over 55.
AND: Remember, the median age for those 3 big cable news networks getting all of the viewers is in the upper 60s.

FOR THE (very sad) RECORD:
​

  • 9 networks averaged a primetime number from the 300k to 400k viewers.
  • 89 networks averaged less than 150k viewers in primetime.
    • MTV, FREEFORM, E!, PARAMOUNT NET, TNT and VH1 all fell in this category.
  • You have to go to #139 on the Top 200 Cable Network Programs for the week to find something that isn’t sports, or something on FOX NEWS or MSNBC.
    • That something was the Adventures Love Birding movie on HALLMARK Saturday night.
  • There were just 4 other shows on the Top 200 Cable Network Programs list that were not news or sports last week:
    • TLC 90 Day Fiancee (#158)
    • TLC Sister Wives (#172)
    • DISCO Deadliest Catch (#187)
    • TBS Big Bang Theory (#198)
  • FINAL NOTE: CNN doesn’t make the Top 200 list until #189 (Kasie Hunt’sshow)


No wonder Rupert Murdoch wants a slice of TikTok.
 
Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
annabenedetti said:
The "sad, sad" world of cable TV news (and their elderly viewers). Any talk of "the MSM" is, and has been, meaningless.

I knew it was bad, but I didn't know it was this bad.

Cable TV 2025 is a sad, sad place​

The folks at NIELSEN are releasing some new weekly reports with their new BIG DATA + PANEL metrics 👏.

And, ok, yes — this isn’t breaking news — but looking at where things stand for the average linear TV audiences on cable TV networks in the final week of September 2025 . . . wow.

The cable bundle has really meaningfully become, as predicted, just sports and news.

More accurately — the cable TV bundle is just ESPN, 3 cable news networks and one lifestyle network on a given evening.

Elsewhere, primetime audience viewership numbers are more brutal than I expected — across the board. Let’s dive in.

The following is from Sept. 22 thru Sept. 28, and just centers on live/same-day audiences (no delayed viewing).

PRIMETIME AUDIENCE AVERAGES​

​

NEWS NETWORKS

  • FOX NEWS: 2.45M
  • MSNBC: 853k
  • CNN: 538k
SPORTS . . . meaning ESPN:

  • ESPN: 2.7M
  • FS1’s average was 62k 🫣
ALL OTHER CABLE NETWORKS AVERAGING AT LEAST 400K VIEWERS IN PRIME:

  • HGTV: 492k (49k are under 50 years old)
ALL OTHER CABLE NETWORKS AVERAGING AT LEAST 350K VIEWERS IN PRIME:

  • FOOD: 383k
  • HALLMARK: 378k
  • TLC: 367k
  • fin

SO:​

​

In a world with about 60M folks subscribed to / getting most name-brand cable TV networks as part of the TV bundles they pay for each month — only 1 general entertainment network had over 400k viewers on a given night . . . and 4 general entertainment cable TV networks had more than 350k viewers total during the last week of September.

  • That’s about 0.6% of people paying for cable TV watching one of the top 4-rated non-sports or news networks on a given night.
    • Of that, the vast, vast majority of those people are over 50, and mostly over 55.
AND: Remember, the median age for those 3 big cable news networks getting all of the viewers is in the upper 60s.

FOR THE (very sad) RECORD:​

​

  • 9 networks averaged a primetime number from the 300k to 400k viewers.
  • 89 networks averaged less than 150k viewers in primetime.
    • MTV, FREEFORM, E!, PARAMOUNT NET, TNT and VH1 all fell in this category.
  • You have to go to #139 on the Top 200 Cable Network Programsfor the week to find something that isn’t sports, or something on FOX NEWS or MSNBC.
    • That something was the Adventures Love Birding movie on HALLMARK Saturday night.
  • There were just 4 other shows on the Top 200 Cable Network Programs list that were not news or sports last week:
    • TLC 90 Day Fiancee (#158)
    • TLC Sister Wives (#172)
    • DISCO Deadliest Catch (#187)
    • TBS Big Bang Theory (#198)
  • FINAL NOTE: CNN doesn’t make the Top 200 list until #189 (Kasie Hunt’sshow)


No wonder Rupert Murdoch wants a slice of TikTok.
Click to expand...

annabenedetti said:
If you could pull one idea out of that to focus on, what would it be?
Click to expand...

:unsure:
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Idolater said:
btw, WHY DIDN'T Arthur ever respond to us @JudgeRightly when we educated him on how "the poor" in America are "fat"? How come he never got back to us on that? I thought we addressed him pretty straightforwardly. :unsure:
Click to expand...
I didn't reply earlier as this last year has been a nightmare with health issues, stomach problems that I wouldn't wish on anyone frankly and compounded by a mini stroke that probably came about because of said problems and that I wouldn't wish on anyone either. Not 100% now but here's something along the lines of the response you would have got months ago.

I concede your point, not only that, I berate myself for not thinking things through more as I should have known better having been on the breadline myself and also not having to worry about money at all. When you're skint then you can only afford the basics in food, none of which is particularly high in nutritional value but it does contain plenty of fat, salt and sugar etc. So yes, it's not surprising that those in poverty in America and elsewhere are reliant on food that's not healthy (it isn't) but covers the basics. Those that get welfare to even get that, that is.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Idolater said:
Plain.

ofc. It's also interesting when he comes barging in here bragging that there's no such thing as fat poor people, and then is confronted with the fact that in America, those are the only poor people we have, are fat poor people. It's just really convenient for him to come here and pound the podium and then leave when found to be completely wrong.

And the irony is that ofc we both agree lol, there's no such thing as fat poor people. That makes a mockery of words and meanings. No poor people are fat. That's the most illogical thing almost you could think of. Poor people are by definition not fat. They're lots of other things, but fat isn't one of them.



They're just tentacles of either the Democratic Party, or of big business—or maybe probably of both. Either way they've lost the trust of many Americans to report even just the mere facts (along with their immediate and obv entailments and implications).
Click to expand...
Well, there isn't an irony as I've explained in my last. If you're poor then food wise you're looking at the basics and hang vitamins and nutrients etc.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Arthur Brain said:
Well, there isn't an irony as I've explained in my last. If you're poor then food wise you're looking at the basics an hang vitamins and nutrients etc.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. it's very often the case that economically struggling communities don't have the same access to healthy food. They have corner stores and fast food but not the same amount or kinds of grocery stores, farmer's markets, etc. that would give them access to fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and minimally processed foods. Both parents work long hours and there's not enough time to cook a meal that takes time. They're overwhelmed, and if the closest place is a McDonald's, they do what they can.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
annabenedetti said:
In the U.S. it's very often the case that economically struggling communities don't have the same access to healthy food. They have corner stores and fast food but not the same amount or kinds of grocery stores, farmer's markets, etc. that would give them access to fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and minimally processed foods. Both parents work long hours and there's not enough time to cook a meal that takes time. They're overwhelmed, and if the closest place is a McDonald's, they do what they can.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so the highly processed food is cheaper and full of fat and salt etc, the same as it is here but it's not healthy. I used to live on pasta, beans and processed food and it kept the pounds on (I'm lucky to have a fast metabolism so never got fat) but fruit? Vegetables? Low fat stuff and nutritional? Not at the time...
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Arthur Brain said:
I didn't reply earlier as this last year has been a nightmare with health issues, stomach problems that I wouldn't wish on anyone frankly and compounded by a mini stroke that probably came about because of said problems and that I wouldn't wish on anyone either. Not 100% now but here's something along the lines of the response you would have got months ago.
Click to expand...

Keep on getting better, my friend.

Arthur Brain said:
I concede your point, not only that, I berate myself for not thinking things through more as I should have known better having been on the breadline myself and also not having to worry about money at all. When you're skint then you can only afford the basics in food, none of which is particularly high in nutritional value but it does contain plenty of fat, salt and sugar etc. So yes, it's not surprising that those in poverty in America and elsewhere are reliant on food that's not healthy (it isn't) but covers the basics. Those that get welfare to even get that, that is.
Click to expand...
Arthur Brain said:
Exactly, so the highly processed food is cheaper and full of fat and salt etc, the same as it is here but it's not healthy. I used to live on pasta, beans and processed food and it kept the pounds on (I'm lucky to have a fast metabolism so never got fat) but fruit? Vegetables? Low fat stuff and nutritional? Not at the time...
Click to expand...

🏆
 
Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
Arthur Brain said:
I didn't reply earlier as this last year has been a nightmare with health issues, stomach problems that I wouldn't wish on anyone frankly and compounded by a mini stroke that probably came about because of said problems and that I wouldn't wish on anyone either. Not 100% now but here's something along the lines of the response you would have got months ago.
Click to expand...

I don't wish ill on anybody Arthur, and I hope you're on the mend.

Arthur Brain said:
I concede your point, not only that, I berate myself for not thinking things through more as I should have known better having been on the breadline myself and also not having to worry about money at all. When you're skint then you can only afford the basics in food, none of which is particularly high in nutritional value but it does contain plenty of fat, salt and sugar etc. So yes, it's not surprising that those in poverty in America and elsewhere are reliant on food that's not healthy (it isn't) but covers the basics. Those that get welfare to even get that, that is.
Click to expand...

Point is you can classify people as poor based on different metrics, but if you take BMI, body mass index, as the metric, then in America we don't even have any poor people. Like almost literally zero, if you care, you can get on food welfare (SNAP benefits), and did you know, half of those in America on SNAP benefits, are obese? Not even just overweight, but obese. BMI over 30. Healthy's considered like BMI 18-25 or something like that, and over 50% of those on SNAP benefits are BMI >35

Which is absolutely wild, but in a really good way. We don't tolerate hunger and impoverishment in America, we are absolutely super-duper number 1 in the World in caring for the poor. We don't just make sure they're not starving, we don't keep them just above death, we want them big and FAT, because that's ultimately love.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Idolater said:
I don't wish ill on anybody Arthur, and I hope you're on the mend.



Point is you can classify people as poor based on different metrics, but if you take BMI, body mass index, as the metric, then in America we don't even have any poor people. Like almost literally zero, if you care, you can get on food welfare (SNAP benefits), and did you know, half of those in America on SNAP benefits, are obese? Not even just overweight, but obese. BMI over 30. Healthy's considered like BMI 18-25 or something like that, and over 50% of those on SNAP benefits are BMI >35

Which is absolutely wild, but in a really good way. We don't tolerate hunger and impoverishment in America, we are absolutely super-duper number 1 in the World in caring for the poor. We don't just make sure they're not starving, we don't keep them just above death, we want them big and FAT, because that's ultimately love.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

You're really not 'super duper' as you like to think, the recent government shutdown and denied access to SNAP benefits showed that much. If you really cared you'd be concerned that the poor could afford to eat healthily.
 
Idolater

Idolater

Popetard
annabenedetti said:
In the U.S. it's very often the case that economically struggling communities don't have the same access to healthy food. They have corner stores and fast food but not the same amount or kinds of grocery stores, farmer's markets, etc. that would give them access to fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and minimally processed foods. Both parents work long hours and there's not enough time to cook a meal that takes time. They're overwhelmed, and if the closest place is a McDonald's, they do what they can.
Click to expand...

Totally missing the point, ofc, unsurprisingly.

A pound of body fat is 3500-4000 extra calories.

Say you've got a fatty who's at BMI 35. Probably their fat mass index is 15 or more. FMI of like 5 or more is less than ideal, but these ones are lugging around an extra probably 10 units of FMI, if you're talking about a 200 LB person with a 35 BMI and 15 FMI, that's over 80 LBS of fat, so if FMI gets cut in half to 7.5, which is still too fat really, ideally, that's over 40 LBS.

A pound of body fat is 3500-4000 extra calories. That means they've eaten over 160,000 extra calories. Probably over 200,000. That's a lot of McDonalds. That's dedication.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Idolater said:
Totally missing the point, ofc, unsurprisingly.

A pound of body fat is 3500-4000 extra calories.

Say you've got a fatty who's at BMI 35. Probably their fat mass index is 15 or more. FMI of like 5 or more is less than ideal, but these ones are lugging around an extra probably 10 units of FMI, if you're talking about a 200 LB person with a 35 BMI and 15 FMI, that's over 80 LBS of fat, so if FMI gets cut in half to 7.5, which is still too fat really, ideally, that's over 40 LBS.

A pound of body fat is 3500-4000 extra calories. That means they've eaten over 160,000 extra calories. Probably over 200,000. That's a lot of McDonalds. That's dedication.
Click to expand...
Do you have a well balanced diet where you can afford to eat what you like without giving it a seconds thought? That includes takeaways of course and nutritionally balanced meals?
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Idolater said:
I don't wish ill on anybody Arthur, and I hope you're on the mend.



Point is you can classify people as poor based on different metrics, but if you take BMI, body mass index, as the metric, then in America we don't even have any poor people. Like almost literally zero, if you care, you can get on food welfare (SNAP benefits), and did you know, half of those in America on SNAP benefits, are obese? Not even just overweight, but obese. BMI over 30. Healthy's considered like BMI 18-25 or something like that, and over 50% of those on SNAP benefits are BMI >35

Which is absolutely wild, but in a really good way. We don't tolerate hunger and impoverishment in America, we are absolutely super-duper number 1 in the World in caring for the poor. We don't just make sure they're not starving, we don't keep them just above death, we want them big and FAT, because that's ultimately love.
Click to expand...
BMI does not reflect wealth, lack of or anything else in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top