Those bizarre ratings fluctuations O'Reilly likes to talk about are back:

From Wednesday, Dec. 3

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/12/04/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-december-3/9199

Olby takes first with the 25-45 demo in the live show:

8PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor—3,067,000 viewers (585,000) (1,170,000)
Campbell Brown —964,000 viewers (288,000) (385,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —1,811,000 viewers (699,000) (842,000)
Nancy Grace –1,121,000 viewers (437,000) (580,000)

9 PM - P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Hannity & Colmes—2,262,000 viewers (490,000) (892,000)
Larry King Live —1,283,000 viewers (393,000) (510,000)
Rachel Maddow Show —1,454,000 viewers (545,000) (700,000)
On the Money—178,000 viewers (61,000) (89,000)
Lou Dobbs- 552,000 viewers (223,000) (277,000)

But it gets weird considering the rerun numbers:

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record w/Greta—1,730,000 viewers (406,000) (648,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—1,275,000 viewers (364,000) (562,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann —692,000 viewers (245,000) (327,000)
Big Idea w/Donny Deutsch —234,000 viewers (105,000) (121,000)
Nancy Grace –594,000 viewers (273,000) (387,000)

11 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
The O’Reilly Factor—1,226,000 viewers (425,000) (605,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—795,000 viewers (347,000) (443,000)
Rachel Maddow Show –542,000 viewers (217,000) (318,000)
Mad Money—194,000 viewers (96,000) (122,000)
Showbiz Tonight– 366,000 viewers (233,000) (247,000)

O'Reilly's live show numbers dropped from 748,000 to 585,000 in one day, while his rerun numbers surged from 351,000 to 425,000.

Olbermann's live show spiked from 585,000 to 699,000, while his rerun numbers fell from 326,000 to 245,000.

So if you combine the live show and rerun for the past two days, you get:

O'Reilly: 1,099,000 viewers Tuesday, 1,010,000 viewers Wednesday

Olbermann: 911,000 viewers Tuesday, 944,000 viewers Wednesday

Relatively stable in total. And O'Reilly cleaned his clock in total viewers and the other demos across the board.

So for some reason O'Reilly viewers in the key demo yesterday couldn't watch live and tuned into the rerun, while the reverse was true for Olbermann.

Or, maybe O'Reilly is right and someone at Nielsen is fudging the numbers to give Olbermann a bit of an edge in the live show numbers.

Otherwise, considering the quality and subject matter of both shows, the ratings make no sense.

Sorry, Olby, but I'm afraid "O'Reilly Sucks" doesn't quite cut it

A variation of that is "Um...it's 'cause...you suck." You never forget attacks like that.

I meant *was*.

The constant debate about ratings and the once in a blue moon win in the 25-54 demo means absolutely nothing to advertisers. It all boils down to cost-per-thousand averages and O'Reilly and Fox wins day after day, month after month, and year after year. Much of the advertising on Olby is buy one, get one free...or buy here and get Rach for free....or reverse. In every measurement there is, Fox AND O'Reilly are cash cows and Olby, Rach, and MSNBC are...losers. If they really want to make money at MSNBC, run more prison shows.

BTW...last night Michael Moore was on with Olby and I thought it was an Animal Planet Hippo special. I turned the station before they began mating.

Ya know, come to think of it, I suppose a bunch of people watch one show live, then watch the rerun, and the next day switch which show they watch live.

Yeah right.

Advertisers may not care, but these kind of ratings swings give Olbermann all the excuse he needs to yap about how great he is on his own show. You know, the one where he never offers a guest with an opposing viewpoint or reads viewer mail.

Tonight on WPITW, he names Worse Shawn Hannity, cherry picking another part of the same interview that he used to name Hannity Worst last night. (Isn't that just plain cheating? You'd think he'd want to choose from a wider base of material).

Anyway, tonight he names Hannity, even though he really picks on John Ziegler for saying the MSNBC audience sample is too small to take seriously.

More than enough of an excuse for Olby to read the ratings that benefit him, of course citing only the 25-54 demo in the live viewings slot, which I laid out above. Of course, he ignores the total picture of factoring in the reruns (as many viewers on the West Coast must tune into the later show), or the fluctuations (which he dismisses as "O'Reilly sucks," so it must be only a matter of time when he takes over completely).

It's like he's so proud of his inconsistent performances. In sports, such inconsistency would get you traded.

But really, I guess Hannity is named worse simply because his show finished fourth in a single demo reading. But then, why doesn't Olbermann also pick on Alan Colmes?

What a douchebag.

Those numbers are nothing to be proud of...

The "key demo" is the lowest of them all. Even being ahead of BOR in it, he wasn't by much, and he got killed in the other numbers along with the the reruns.

You know I thought BOR was smoking something funny when he claimed there was inconsistancy in the numbers, and now I'm beginning to think he's actually onto something given the rerun data.

Specially after last week when an absent BOR still killed Countdown in the ratings. Something funny is going on over there.

Once again, Joseph Goebells-Olbermann talked about prosecuting those soldiers responsible for America's "torture" policy.

Mr. Goebells-Olbermann, WHY DO YOU HATE OUR VICTORIOUS TROOPS SO MUCH?

8 Days since our MISSION has been ACCOMPLISHED in Iraq (Thank you General Petraus and President Bush for your leadership)

I got a question. If we can charge soldiers for torturing the enemy, can we also charge them for killing the enemy?

I got a question. If we can charge soldiers for torturing the enemy, can we also charge them for killing the enemy?

Credibility destruction alert: Mark Shaiman and comedian/actor Jack Black will appear on the Hour of Spin tonight. Too bad; I liked Jack Black.

The ratings for last night are in:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_thursday_dec_4_102581.asp
"The Factor" was your 8PM winner in the demos and total viewers. "H&C" was your 9PM winner in the demos and total viewers.
Double-run 25-54 demographic score:
"The O'Reilly Factor" at 8PM/11PM: 1,027,000
"Countdown" at 8PM/10PM: 793,000
Oh, by the way, total viewers at 8PM was another annihilation: BOR, 3,149,000; Olby, 1,553,000.

Lafinman, here's the question of the day:

Would Joseph Goebells Olbermann be glad if our soldiers were charged for killing the enemy/terrorists?

Judging by the contempt he has shown our soldiers in the past, I believe he would.

What say you?

Damn it Jack Black, everytime you Hollywood know-it-alls put your nose into politics, you lose fans. Personally, I'm in agreement with you about Proposal 8, but since you're appearing on a hate-filled, propaganda driven program like Propaganda Minister Olbermann's program, you'll be losing me as a fan.

I guess I'll have to find another Christmas present for my brother...I planned on getting the new Tenacious D CD.

I love how Liberals just assume that the only reason someone voted in favor of Prop 8 or is against gay marriage is because they read something in the Bible. Talk about missing the point.

I read the transcript from last night a few hours ago. Keith made Shepard Smith one of the Best Persons. Why?
OLBERMORONN: "[Shepard] Smith of Fox News. Yes I said it, others around you may foam in the mouth, over imaginary war zones on Christmas but you still avoid the paranoid. The graphic in the lower right corner says holiday spirit. Thank you."
So, since the graphic read "Holiday Spirit," it's a victory on OlbyPlanet. This is what happens when you hate your competition so much. Anything that flies in the face of the eeevil O'Reilly is gratifying.

In Olbermann's mind, playing nice with Fox every once in a while shows how he is willing to respect opposing viewpoints. It's a crock of BS, but that's Olby for ya.

Of course, it's the most Olbermann is willing to do, since he won't actually bring on any guests who disagree with him. Not like O'Reilly does. Like yesterday, O'Reilly got owned by Megyn Kelly in a debate over that Washington atheism fiasco. Olbermann doesn't have the balls to risk his staid image. But O'Reilly can. He's a hothead. That's why we love him.

"I got a question. If we can charge soldiers for torturing the enemy, can we charge them for killing the enemy?"

Wow.....what a deep question THAT one is!

I guess it depends on whether the enemy was killed in the heat of battle?......Or if they were executed while helpless and in our custody?

Any more brain teasers?

Yeah how does it feel to snipe away at old comments?

Did you already get sick of being pwn3d in realy time Mike Hunt?

I guess it depends on whether the enemy was killed in the heat of battle?......Or if they were executed while helpless and in our custody? By Mike Hussein

Since you have proof of prisoners being executed, as you were obviously there while these "executions" took place, and you were in the army yourself, does that make you an accompliss after the fact?

Or is putting ones underwear on prisoners heads equal to the worst kind of torture imaginable.

Then again *what* country exactly did you represent when you enlisted?

Just another "brain teaser" I'd like to throw your way since you so frequently toss them out.

Did you have a point you wanted to make Wolverine?......Or was that just your usual knee jerk lashing out at ideas that don't fit your own personal Reich Wing interpretation of what you deem patriotic?

My post was about an idea, and for reasons only you can fathom, you chose to turn it into yet another personal attack on patriotism, rather than respond to the idea.

The very pro-American fact remains that execution without due process is murder regardless of who the perpetrator is, or who the victim is......and any attempt to justify or ignore any such acts would be inherently uncontitutional, and therefore unpatriotic.

Clearly, the common denominator of Lafinman's silly analogy was to compare torture to killing in a strickly theoretical setting. Since by definition, torture involves intentional infliction of pain and injury on a subdued individual, the only way it could be compared to killing was if the theoretical killing were done to a foe who had been subdued. My post was a simply a sarcastic comment illustrating how ridiculous such an analogy actually is....But I really think you knew that.

But instead of resonding to the idea presented, you chose to attack the patriotism of a fellow veteran....Only you can give an explanation for why you did that? But I doubt if it would make any sense to me.

lol awe this is so precious lol

Clearly, the common denominator of Lafinman's silly analogy was to compare torture to killing in a strickly theoretical setting...by Mike Hussein

No, "clearly" Lafinman's analogy was to imply that America is blamed for everything from people who hate America to the point of blaming them for torturing prisoners without any proof and also to how it would actually help us in the fight against terroism, so why not also charge them for having the *audacity* for actually killing the enemy?

Obviously Lafinman was making a facetious comparison, but you...in seeing only the evil in all of America...took it seriously, as any anti-American would do.

Therefore, the attack on your patriotism. If, as you say, you are patriotic then why comment at all about his statement? Why not just leave it for what it was, a comment made that most Americans agree with, which is to say exactly what he meant it to say? That America has been wrongly accused over and over again by anti-Americans for every ill in the world, whereas we will next be charged with the injustice of killing the same people who would do everything in their power to wipe us off the face of the planet.

In reality his question WAS very profound, although "tongue in cheek," and not as far-fetched as you would make it out to be.

Since there is no proof (which I again ask you to prove America has partaken in these *horrible* tortures just for the sake of torturing), then why not ask the question as to when will America be charged with killing the enemy?

A *no-brainer* MikeH for anybody who is behind America, but then again it begs the question: now that your man is in the White House, and the same things continue to happen, will you also condemn him for these "supposed" illegal doings?

Or, GOD FORBID, your man makes sure none of this ever happens again, and thousands of our innocent people die because of us being more *patriotic* by not being able to get useful information out of the enemy that we would have gotten from the old and "inhuman" way, and to you this is being patriotic?

The answer is obvious with anyone who even closely resembles a patriot, but then again since you would never agree with this way of thinking, then what would you call yourself?

Wolverine: "Obviously Lafinman was making a facetious comparison, but you....in seeing only eveil in all of America...took it seriously, as any anti-American would do.".......followed by more delusional Hannity-like drivel.

1) - Just who in the hell do you think you are to claim that YOU know how I "took" a particular comment, especially after I've already explained the comment in detail?

2) - Just who in the hell do you think YOU are to define who is "anti-American"?

3) - Who in the hell do you think YOU are to determine who is a patriot, and who isn't?

4) - The very idea that YOU think that you alone has a lock on the necessary thought processes one needs to be a 'patriot' is evidence that you don't even understand the meaning of the word. On the contrary, calling someone else's views on what is best for America "anti-American" is about as anti-American as you can get in a society that has defined free speech as it's single most important defining factor.

You once bragged about your so-called 'high IQ', but then you turn around and contradict that claim by parroting incredibly stupid, thoughtless, and insulting talking points in response to an idea....That said, if you are arguing that we haven't at least violated the Geneva Convention in regards to what it has already defined as torture, then you aren't paying attention to what has already been admitted to.

The answer to your rather inane back-up to an equally stupid analogy is that documents that we called the Constitution and the Geneva Convention define torture while NEITHER document questions the legitimacy of killing an enemy in the heat of battle in wartime. True American patriots revere and honor both documents as well as the lofty principals on which they were created. Meanwhile, false patriots (like yourself) pick and choose which principals you want to discard when the situation becomes uncomfortable.

One point that NO ONE who chooses to look the other way when torture occurs in our name has ever addressed is the fact that whether or not we choose to torture says FAR more about our own values than it does about the values of those who we choose to torture.

NO ONE on the right has ever given a satisfactory answer to WHY they think we can still claim to be better than our enemies if we stoop to their level in response to their tactics?

I have posted that torture is NOT about the enemy...it is about US.....many times, but NO ONE who would defend or excuse such practices has ever given a coherent explanation as to why this is not so?

Finally, your beliefs are self-evident.....You obviously believe that the end always justifies the means.....Your problem is that you cannot have such a belief and claim to stand on principal at the same time. The early Christians understood it was better to be eaten by the lion that to compromise their cherished beliefs. You obviously don't understand such concepts.

Yes, Mike H the end does justify the means ALWAYS when it pertains to Americans dying because you think we should hold true to the Geneva convention.

You would rather us lose lives on principle, then to save lives.

And, yes, you always preach that shit that torture is not about the enemy but about us, but that's in the fantasy world that you live in, because if it was about us then you'd know that our enemies could give a flying f..k about any Geneva convention, and will continue to torture and attack us whether we torture or not.

They don't give a damn about morals, codes, etc. as it's all about wiping us and our ideals off the face of this planet, and if we lose ONE life because some bleeding heart liberal thought it best not to torture an enemy who otherwise would have given us the info we needed if we had used it, than you and your ideals contributed to that death.

And, as to your most sickening comment about true Americans honoring the Geneva convention no matter what, then that would make my father (who actually participated in combat during the war, as opposed to you) a non-patriot in your un-American eyes because he didn't honor it, and in not doing so may have saved thousands of imprisoned Jews.

To you he would have been a true patriot to let these Germans that he and his men caught, slide by while they had the info of what was going to happen to these prisoners.

Yeah, Mike H, it would have MUCH BETTER to let the innocents get slaughtered, so he could have held his head high after the fact, saying "I could have saved them, but I didn't want to show that I was as bad as the enemy. Thank God I'm a patriot."

Get out of that fantasy world you live in, and come back to America when you do.

And, I'll say it again: If you think for one moment that we haven't been singled out time and time again and especially by our so-called "own" people, about how "evil" we are, then the next thing we will be held accountable for will be because we had the *nerve* to actually kill the people who would love nothing more than to wipe us off this planet...

Lafinman was rat own with what he implied. Amen...