Cable news ratings, September 22, 2009: Check out the highlights, and see the full ratings below:
• Fox News averaged 2,504,000 total viewers in prime time last night, topping CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined. Bill O’Reilly had the top show on cable news, in the A25-54 demographic and total viewers. Glenn Beck at 5pmET was #2.
• The top non-FNC program of the night was HLN’s Nancy Grace at 8pmET in the demo and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann during the same hour in total viewers (Lawrence O’Donnell filled in for Olbermann).
Check out all the ratings below, and leave your own thoughts in the comments:
TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a two-day public hearing in November on how pharmaceutical companies use the web and social-media tools to market their products, the first step in a long overdue process that will finally establish guidelines for how drug makers proceed in a Web 2.0 world.
TMZ.com is reporting that Eric Dane and Rebecca Gayheart have filed a $1 million lawsuit in a Los Angeles court against Gawker.com over the much-clicked upon sex-tape the website posted of the two (plus former beauty queen Kari Ann Peniche) last month. Per TMZ:
Dane and Gayheart filed a lawsuit today in L.A. County Superior Court, claiming Gawker.com had not only unlawfully posted almost 4 minutes of the private video that was shot behind closed doors, but “maliciously” distributed the video and included nude shots of the fabulous threesome
Dane and Gayheart want more than $1 million in damages. Their lawyer — legal pit bull Marty Singer — is also asking for an injunction to pull the plug on the video.
Gawker publisher Nick Dentontwittered this just moments ago: “To quote the great Marty Singer — Eric Dane’s lawyer — if you don’t want a sex tape on the internet, “don’t make one!”" This is not actually the first time Gawker has been sued for posting a sex tape. Back in 2005 Limp Biscuit singer Fred Durst sued the site for $80 million for posting a sex tape of him. Later Durst dropped the case and(!) sent Denton flowers.
CNN birther-monger Lou Dobbs apparently reads the internets and had many nerves touched by one of our own bloggers, Roberto Lovato, who recently wrote this piece entitled "As Movement Demanding CNN Dump Him Grows, Dobbs Plays Victim." This article apparently irked Dobbs greatly, causing him to bleat several run-on sentences in which he fumbled basic concepts such as the English language and the U.S. Constitution, whilst doubling down on playing the victim.
I just got to bring this to you. This guy, Roberto Lovato...he's a non-entity but he's one of my fleas, writing in Alternet, saying "Dobbs plays the victim as movement demanding CNN dump him grows." I mean, he is one of those delusional left-wing activists who doesn't care a whit about the truth, he has nothing to do with the truth, but what's really interesting is he's trying to, he's just, he's playing one heck of a...stupid game. He writes, "Faced with a growing movement of communities demanding that CNN drop his program, Lou Dobbs responded Friday with one of his favorite postures: the victimized defender of American virtue." Let me be real clear with you, Roberto. I'm not a victim of anything. I'm just a dog and you're one of my fleas. You know... this nonsense that he writes, "Not surprisingly, Dobbs is waving the First Amendment flag to change the subject"... Well first, Roberto, don't be a bozo anymore than you can help. The First Amendment metaphor would not be a flag, it's an amendment.
Huh? No. One cannot metaphorically refer to an amendment as an amendment. This is not the way "metaphor" works. I despair that people like Dobbs are out there defending the primacy of the English language yet wielding it so ineptly.
It's in the Constitution. It's one of my rights, it's one of yours. You are the one trying to deny my rights. And you know... don't be so silly.
What rights does Dobbs think he is being denied? Is there a part of the Constitution that stipulates that all Americans have the right to host news shows? Because I seem to have missed that. What I didn't miss was this part of Lovato's original piece:
Not surprisingly, Dobbs is waving the First Amendment flag to change the subject, which is not about disagreement on immigration policy, and has nothing to do with free speech. Dobbs has the right to his opinions; but there's nothing in the Constitution that says he deserves a "news" platform to disseminate hurtful and dangerous myths about immigrants.
That's true! There's no talk at all about prohibiting Dobbs's freedom of speech. He could, right at this very moment, start his very own Tumblr and wax poetically about the Mexican leper invasion to his heart's content and the majesty of the First Amendment would be wholly unsullied. This is just one of those examples of a serial platform abuser asserting that the Constitution grants him the right to continue abusing his platform without facing criticism.
In any case, Dobbs continues:
And the fact is, you wouldn't be accusing me of anything if I were supporting illegal immigration and amnesty, and you're not even man enough to admit that straight up.
That is a sentence that really should be preceded by the phrase, "Apropos of nothing in particular..." But, hey, maybe it's true! But say the script was flipped in this way. Clearly, this only means that there would be some other group calling for Dobbs's head and making him sad. Maybe Dobbs should reflect on whether the outrage targeted in his direction is because he has opinions on illegal immigration or that he presents these opinions in a multitude of uninformed and irresponsible ways, placing him at odds with the traditional standards of what is known as "the news."
You are a typical left-wing activist coward propagandist trying to use the Constitution that enables all of to have free expression trying to deny my rights.
I'll refer you back to the part written above where I point out that campaigning to remove someone from a news show is not the same thing as denying anyone their rights. I'll go on to say, "YES. HOW DARE MR. LOVATO ACTUALLY USE HIS OWN RIGHTS OF FREE EXPRESSION. Doesn't he know that some people's rights of free expression are MORE EQUAL than others? Does Mr. Lovato have a news show, on the teevee? No? Well then he should realize his rights are less equal."
You're trying to deny me my rights while turning over this country to those who have no regard for our laws, for our rules, for our customs, and the legal foundation of this country.
It would be terrible if such people assumed control in this country! Our phones could get wiretapped or something!
I mean, you're just...Mr. Lovato you're a joke! And I would like you to come on and defend, if you will, your own, yourself, against what I'm saying. Because I consider you to be an outright fraud and those who would follow you or listen to you, you're simply duping, and you're silly. You're utterly silly.
Actually, what's "utterly silly" is begging the person who's campaigning to get your show dropped from CNN to come on the air with you to bring you more viewers and listeners.