Glenn Beck’s Ratings Have Dropped by 50% in One Year

Glenn Beck managed to lose roughly a million of his Fox News viewers in 2010, and his slide has continued into 2011. Beck’s viewership numbers have gotten so bad that he has been only able to top 2 million viewers three times in the month of January. Beck has seen his ratings decrease by half, and there seems to be no end in sight for the viewer exodus from his program.

Fox News averages about 1.2 million daytime viewers, and 2.4 million primetime viewers. Glenn Beck’s total viewership numbers remain above the daytime average, but well below prime time. For the first three days of this week, Beck had total viewership numbers of 1.9 million, 1.974 million viewers, and 1.99 million viewers. For this week, Beck’s program is second lowest rated show on Fox News, trailing on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

The week before Beck pulled viewership numbers of 1.63 million, 1.78 million, 1.76 million, 1.968 million, and 1.865 million. As Media Matters pointed out, “Between November and the first three weeks of January, Glenn Beck has lost, on average, nearly 500,000 viewers.” Those kinds of numbers aren’t viewer erosion. They are viewer emergency evacuation. One year ago at this time Beck was drawing almost 3 million viewers a night, now on a good night he may draw 2/3 of that amount.

More:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/glenn-beck-ratings-decline

:party: :party: :party::party: :party: :party:

I hate to think where this is going to end up before he is finally gone...

as a warning to the other nuts on his side. Hell they do it to our side, we need to get this loon off the air! :nuke:

Why would we want to 'get him off the air' ? .... He brings incredible negative attention to his pets .... Bully for him ...

to satisfy me.

has nothing to do with ratings, civility, ethics, advertisers, or direct links to murders. His financiers need him to run interference on their corruption, so that people turn on each other instead of them.

...and I'm thrilled to see that others get this. It's been mentioned before that
Beck has been present at meetings that included upper-eschelon mucky mucks, including
the Koch Bros.

Beck is a distraction, created by those in power who want to keep the US divided and
distracted. They get to rob the bank and head out the back door, while we're inside
screaming at each other about differing opinions on the drapes and the rugs in the bank.

It makes me sick that we buy into this nonsense.

I speak out against Beck and other right-wing hacks--but I never lose sight of the
real crimes that are happening--and the manipulation that is happening to the American
people.

Have a co-worker who use to always talk about Beck. I mean every single day. Then I noticed he hadn't done it in a while. Asked him why. "Glen Beck just got to crazy/stupid".

Your watch is getting very close to midnight, Glenn-boy.
GAC

and smelly :rofl:

Then that would suggest the only reason he is on the air is because Ailes and Murdoch like him. It figures.


K&R

Please let it be so. After Beck, Hannity, then O'Rielly until all the liars are silenced by people waking up.

Drop! DROP! DROP! DROP!!

As long as they can break even, they'll continue to spill their sewage.

:kick:

He'll be gone soon.

the propaganda out there influencing people, and they are willing to pay big bucks to "catapult the propaganda," as W once said.

They love making money on such BS when they can, but they ar perfectly willing to pay a lot of money to control the public discourse the way mouths like Beck, Hannity, O'Reilley, etc., do, so if those jerks end up costing their paymasters money, they really don't care.

One reason the RW owns our public discourse even though most Americans are actually liberals, even though they are so misinformed that they don't even realize they are, is that the RWers are willing to pay for propaganda, whereas wealthy people on the liberal side are, in general, unwilling to put their money behind their beliefs in terms of purchasing broadcast and print media and funding media messaging and grassroots activism. People on the left are expected to work for nothing or next than nothing to get the message out, so bright, ambitious people often go RW, even if they don't actually beleive any of that nonsense, because that is where the well-paid careers are.

David Brock (Media Matters) even said in his book Blinded by the Right that the money was a large part of what lured him away from his early liberalism.

Other leftwing thinkers and writers have commented on what it felt like to watch those they went to school with and started their working lives with earn big bucks funded by RW think tanks and media outlets, while they themselves toiled all along in poorly paid obscurity. Juan Cole once posted about that on his blog.

Back in the 1960s, when liberalism was still the dominant strain of public discourse, a lot of powerful, wealthy RWers got together and planned out a long-term strategy to take control of the puclic discourse and the major media outlets, and they did just that.

One thing about the RW: when they are in the wilderness politically, they strategize and work toward longterm goals.

When progressives are in the wilderness, they give up, and when they do get a bit of power (as in 2006 and 2008), they fight among themselves and give up when they don't immediately get the results they want.

The RW is willing to take 2 steps forward for every 1 step back. Unfortunately, it seems that when a the liberal cause suffers the 1 step back, many of its proponents just give up and stop fighting for an extended period of time.

;)


mark