Reading John’s post earlier this week flagging Ezra Klein’s post on what Politico fears, I was particularly struck by Klein’s claim that pretty much no one watches cable news, which in turn was based on this post at Mother Jones (and also commented upon by Jonathan Bernstein here). In response, I posed the following question to my former colleague Markus Prior, the author of Post-Broadcast Democracy
When people say that cable news audiences are only in the hundreds of thousands, does that mean the same hundred of thousands? Or are lots of people watching infrequently?
Markus’s response was as follows:
We don’t know for sure how the average audiences add up over the course of a day or a week because cume audiences are rarely reported by Nielsen. But it’s a good guess that concentration is pretty heavy.
Either way, it is a mistake to argue that cable news viewing is only a minor fraction of overall news consumption:
It is widely believed that Americans as a whole also watch less news than in the past. This belief is based on a flawed interpretation of the available data. Central to the misinterpretation is the impression that a 38 rating for the three evening network news programs—the highest-ever combined yearly average—is more news than an average 1.4 rating for the three major cable networks (CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC)—their 2004 combined average. It is not. The 38 rating means that on a typical weekday in 1980, 38 percent of all U.S. households watched one of the three evening network newscasts—thirty minutes of news (including commercial breaks). For the average household, this amounts to 11.4 minutes (30 minutes ´ .38) of news per weekday. A 1.4 rating for the three cable networks means that 1.4 percent of all U.S. households watched one of the three cable networks during the average minute of the day. For the average household, this amounts to 20.2 minutes (60 minutes ´ 24 hours ´ .014) of news per day. (Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy, p. 151)
Even if cable news accounts for more news consumption than the three network newscasts, this doesn’t mean that cable reaches many “persuadable voters.” Glenn Beck’s audience was conservative before he became the lasted cable sensation. Rachel Maddow preaches to viewers who were liberal before she got her show
No need to argue, then, that cable news isn’t good at what it’s doing—making money by entertaining a few million partisans every day. But it’s not changing American politics as we know it.
{ 5 comments }
Josh:
How can you be so sure that cable news is “not changing American politics as we know it”? Even if it does not change many viewers’ votes, there can be effects through persuasion of nonwatchers.
Beyond this, and maybe more importantly, I’d imagine that spreading talking points among a politically active audience of millions of people could have a big effect. Just ‘cos someone’s a partisan, that doesn’t mean that his or her attitudes on specific issues are predetermined. And if cable news watchers are getting on the horn to their congressmembers, I imagine that could have an effect too.
I agree with Andrew. It’s hard to believe that some of the stories and angles pushed on Fox News would have the legs they have if Fox wasn’t pushing them so hard. The audience share alone is not the only impact. Other networks, papers and blogs have to respond. Now that FOX is also used as an organizing tool as well for rallies, the old interpretations may be called into question.
Well, Fox (and the prime time shows on MSNBC) are pretty efficient transmitters of talking points, and I agree with Andrew that it’s an effect that’s probably worth noting. I wouldn’t be surprised if high-information folks are doing a better job of parroting back their parties positions on a wider array of issues, and cable news could be part of that.
But as far as Doug’s point, I think there’s a big “So What?” to it.
Take, for example, the WH Czar thing. Yes, without cable news, the czar story would have been a lot more fringy (although it would still have been on conservative talk radio and blogs). However, it’s not clear to me what anyone would be missing if they missed that entire story.
Some effects, yes. More than that…I’d like to see some evidence. I’d be surprised if anyone could show cable news is affecting election results or public policy.
Just to clarify the original blog post – everything after the colon came from Markus. So the claim that cable news is “not changing American politics as we know it” was the end of his guest post, not my commentary on his answer. We’ll see if I can talk him into elaborating on that point a bit more…
Jonathan: What do you count as proof? And how much “some” do you want before it’s “enough” to answer “So what?”
Anyway…off the top of my head (and at 1am!) here is one area where cable chatter influences policy: The scores of attacks by Fox, and from a few stories on CNN, on voter registration drives last year may make funding of them harder in 2010 and 2012, and affects how voter registration reforms are discussed on the Hill. I can think of other areas where a news column or two (which presumably a few mentions on TV can equal now and then) created some agenda setting action in a policy area even if it didn’t single handedly control the action (child nutrition programs several years ago is one that comes to mind). I think you have to be fairly close to a specific policy arena to see these effects, but they are there. Or at least they make people expend a lot of resources responding (and they have to respond to protect or advance items, it’s not just all in their heads).
Do you really believe it doesn’t matter? Well, you say that is does “some”. How much “some”?
Thanks for responding.
Comments on this entry are closed.