The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

21 April 2009

Libtalker Ed Schultz Sees MSNBC Ratings Plunge


With Libtalker's Hire, NBC Suits Make Bad Call

When former Air America
host Rachel Maddow briefly rode a wave of cable ratings "success" before the presidential election, the drive-by media couldn't get enough, smothering her in fawning coverage that has only recently subsided. Hey, it's not often that one of their own actually generates an audience, even if just for a brief period.

Now that one of liberal talk radio's key figures has absolutely bombed on cable, however, the mainstream media hasn't a word to say about it. In this case, it's hot-headed Ed Schultz, who has taken a small MSNBC audience base and rendered it truly invisible, with ratings barely perceptible even when analyzed by a microscope.

If the formerly Fargo-based faux populist and paid union hack has an excuse, it's that MSNBC's overall audience has dropped like a rock since the Obamist regime took over in January.

In both the key 25-54 and overall audience demographics, the far-left NBC outlet is losing big to its competitors, especially FOX News Channel, often attracting one-half or even one-third of the latter's viewership. That includes declining figures for Maddow.

Standing out like a sore thumb, however, is Schultz's performance to date. On Friday, his worst day so far, he scored the lowest 25-54 ratings of any cable news show between 6pm and midnight: just 75,000 average viewers nationwide. Overall, it wasn't much better: 365,000. For every person watching the Ed Show, there were more than four tuned into his competition at FOX.

And even Maddow's declining numbers look positively robust next to Big Eddie's: she beat him nearly four to one as well.

Unless Schultz can somehow turn around his so-far dismal showing, it's hard to believe NBC can afford to keep his fledgling program on the air for long. Which corporate suit will be first to have his neck chopped off over this bad call?

If and when he is cancelled, can we expect to read about it in the New York Times, home of nearly endless Maddow-fawning? Don't hold your breath.

FOR New England regional talk radio updates, see our other site.

Amazon orders originating with clicks here benefit The Radio Equalizer's ongoing operations.

Your PayPal contributions keep this site humming along. Thanks!


  • I want to take issue with the "paid union hack" comment.
    I checked into the records dating back to 2003. The money Ed Schultz received since 2003 from Unions is as follows.
    2003 - $0
    2004 - $0
    2005 - $5000 (Speaker fee)
    Laborers National headquarters
    2006 - $7500 (Speaker fee) Laborers National Headquarters
    2006 - $8820 (Speaker)
    State, County, and Municipal employees (AFL-CIO)
    2006 - $5500 (Speaking fee)
    National Air Traffic Controllers Association
    2007 - $8616 (speaking)
    2008 - $10000 (video/media) Publicity/Advertising
    Steelworkers AFL-CIO
    2008 - $7304 (publicity and promotion)Broadcasting services
    National Air Traffic Controllers Association
    2008 - $5000 (event)
    Plumbers local 189 AFL-CIO

    The first 5 items indicate that Ed Schultz was paid to speak at a union event. Is there a problem with this? Media people get paid to speak at events all the time. What is the problem here? Is it the fact that Ed got paid, or the fact that Ed got paid by unions?

    It's not entirely clear what Schultz did to recieve payments from the Steelworkers and NATCA in 2008, although Schultz had earned a speaking fee from NATCA in 2006, and also spoke during a NATCA event in Washington D.C. in early 2007.
    The remaining payment that Schultz received from Plumbers local 189 was for an "event". A simple search will show that the Ed Schultz show was held at the union hall in Columbus Ohio on August 20, 2008. Tickets were sold to attend the event. It's likely Schultz was paid a fee of $5000 for the event, and the union kept the ticket moneys received in excess of the $5000. It appears Schultz was basically a paid speaker at this "event".

    If someone has proof that Schultz was paid by unions for having them on his show (sort of pay for airtime), then show it. Otherwise the only thing we are sure of is that Schultz has been paid to speak at union events over the last four years. That is not a crime. Hopefully you don't want people to look into the speaking fees that every right wing talker has earned , and how they may have promoted such causes on their shows. I'd guess the list would be much longer.

    By Blogger Ezsuds, at 21 April, 2009 04:28  

  • Brian does not nderstand how cable television works. Maddow is bringing in $$$$, hs a desirable demo, mainly educated people with money. I have advertised on her show, the results killed. I advertised on Hannity, the results were about the same. For the monet Madow is a better place to advertise as is MSNBC in general. You get the same results for a lower price, creating loyal sponsers. Fox, while they have a higher audience, charge way to much per spot and considering the large audience is not worth the money. Schultz does not cost $50 million a year, like Rush does, he will do just fine with the limited audience. It is all about buys and results.

    Schultz, a paid union hack..... so be it, the entire Fox network are paid Anti-union hacks. The Anti-union psitioning of conservatives will only hurt your cause. America supports unions, and America does not blame unions for the economic down turn. Your views are the minority. Most Americans are not rich and out to screw unions.

    By Anonymous ConsH8Reality, at 21 April, 2009 10:49  

  • The liberal "Con" (whom I believe uses multiple nicks/idents) wrote:

    "Brian does not nderstand how cable television works."



    A liberal speaks from ignorance once again and only does so in a vain and very weak attempt to smear.

    And once again, the uber-libs show how right I am well as conservative talk show hosts concerning the classlessness and cluelessness they exhibit habitually. Thank you "ConsH8" (or whatever you call yourself now), you make it OH SO EASY!

    By Blogger Carl, at 21 April, 2009 15:40  

  • "Reality":

    Fox News: #2 cable channel overall, now available in HD, launched Fox Nation, all upward climbs.

    MSNBC: lower ratings, weekends without live updates, repositioning on cable systems to Siberia (a high channel SD number, digital only), many sophomoric "tea bag" jokes from their "Rhodes scholar", dismal niewership for Mr. Ed, all downward trends. Keep sending them your bucks, I'm sure they need them.

    By Blogger Chromium, at 21 April, 2009 15:44  

  • Fox billing = 15 times the amount of MSNBC.

    Sorry, Cons, you lose.

    Please execute yourself.

    By Anonymous Pirate Jack, at 21 April, 2009 17:05  

  • Carl The liberal “Con” as you call him lies so much he doesn’t know who he is any more.

    The answer is a union guy that runs a spot light in a theater. You know one of those jobs you might have in high school but I guess you go where your abilities are. He says he’s a Socialist which I believe.

    To sum up his life, he’s a single loser with a computer that lies.

    For the record we call him MOP, Moped or Jared. My favorite is loser.

    By Blogger pf1, at 22 April, 2009 01:12  

  • Have you hugged your tree today.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 22 April, 2009 07:50  

  • Look for Obama to start subsidizing MSNBC. He needs them to continue to be the mouthpiece of liberalism.

    By Anonymous MAS1916, at 22 April, 2009 11:27  

  • Carl

    You are the ignorant fool, who thinks the whole nation loves Fox. In one 1 hour of any evening netowrk news program, the ratings are 600 times more than Fox.
    Carl is a litle Fox lemming, are you a Fox Fan? hahahaahahahaah pathetic.
    For the money MSNBC is a much better buy, at least their audience has an income, Fox audience is broke as a joke

    Fox= 3 million for the day
    MSNBC- 1.2 million for the day
    Network News= 12-18 million in an hour

    perspective Carl, you Beck watching mongoloid
    God bless unions, and god less working Amrica, good for Ed Schultz, defending the worker. COns: your anti-worker stance will keep you powerlessfor decades

    By Anonymous PowerlessConservativesLoveFox, at 22 April, 2009 12:56  

  • Just another opinion about another potential misguided hiring choice to be announced soon! Could it be none other than the "movin' to be with her Disney Characters" with claims that her every problem is brought about, not by herself, but by "contract breaches"?
    Must be nice to be "substidized" - and having a boyfreind to help you learn to get it right!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 22 April, 2009 15:54  

  • The decision to put Ed Schultz on is another disaster from the far left suits like Jeffery Immelt and Jeff Zucker, like Rush says, to these people the customer is always wrong...

    By Anonymous HAP, at 22 April, 2009 21:00  

  • And "Con" is back using another nick with the same classlessness and cluelessness uber-libs share. "Con" is self-parodying. Plus "Con" shows how ignorant he/she is. Thank you for playing "Con" but you lose. Again. Please accept the home version of the game as a parting gift.

    By Blogger Carl, at 22 April, 2009 23:48  

  • Like I said before liar income what income do Liberals have food stamps?

    MOP you are so scared of the real world that is why you hide behind your union job you never could make it in the real world. Your right a union provides you with job security because no one else would hire you. Ever wonder why.

    By Blogger pf1, at 23 April, 2009 02:27  

  • Hey Jared, MOP or as you now want to be called "ProudConservatives...":

    You wrote:

    In one 1 hour of any evening netowrk news program...

    followed by some other drivel.

    For your information, there are no hour-long commercial network evening newscasts! PBS has one, Fox News does, but ABC, CBS, and NBC do not.

    If you want us to believe the drivel, at least get your preamble correct.

    By Blogger Chromium, at 23 April, 2009 13:12  

  • Pf1

    Fox= 3 million for the day
    MSNBC- 1.2 million for the day
    Network News= 12-18 million in an hour

    Liberals on food stamps, is that all you 20%wers have left, you dirty, Anti-American, basement dwelling bush voter?

    From experoemce, I'm a media buyer, "liberal" based shows, have audiences with disposable income, unlike conservative programs, mostly watched by retired people, and junior high school boys.
    I run a mail order company, and purchase around $10,000 a month in advertising, in addition to working as a Stage Hand for ballet and Broadway productions, no conservatives visit these establishments, tickets cost too much, for the SSI dittohead

    Look , your jealous, my life is more interesting than you, jealous I work harder than you, jealous I'm a media insider, have contacts in radio and cable television, jealous, I'm an indepedent thinker and Rush thinks for you, jealous my IQ is over 160, jealous,I earn a good living, jealous, I know the truth regarding media.

    MSNBC is cheaper, and the results are better. Simple as that. Fox News for direct response, generated people with no money, no credit cards, and no serious buying interest. MSNBC with their smaller audience were ready to buy and my salespeople converted on 60% of the calls generated by MNSBC. Same true for Liberal talk radio. We used Dr.Laura, 200 calls, 1 sale for a $400 spot with Salem.... We used Tom Hartman, 30 calls, 8 sales, for a $60 spot.
    Same with Ed Schultz, $60 spots, 20 calls, 7 sales. Liberal radio just generates better leads, the listeners are just better off.

    "libs" on foodstamps? Sure..... Park Ave "libs" with their 2 millon co-ops are on foodstamps.

    You REpukes are more clueless than I imagined

    By Anonymous RealityInfuriatesDittoheads, at 23 April, 2009 14:56  

  • To RealityInfuriatesDittoheads:

    I am a conservative and I can tell you I work much harder than you do. I don't go around boasting about how great I am and how much I make....because it is not important.

    You work for broadway and the are a part of pop culture and years from now no one will care about sad really. When you are older and realize all the work you did was for nothing, I will be happy because my life is filled with meaningful work.

    By Anonymous WorkingForABetterCause, at 23 April, 2009 22:24  

  • Isn't it crazy people who keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? I rest my case.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 April, 2009 07:47  


    By Blogger SHUT UP DEM LIARS, at 24 April, 2009 10:18  

  • WorkingForABetterCauseand: What would that be? How do you make the world better?

    I'm simply responding to someone who thinks "libs are on foodstamps"

    Let's hear how you make the world a better place? I also happen to rescue cats in my few spare hours, that is how I make the world better. I like cats better than people anyway

    I don't care how meaningless my work is, I live in a capitalistic society and 90% of us work jobs that are meanibangless and only exist to enrich their boss... So what? We all have bills to pay.

    I just had to list my resume, for Cark and Pf1, who think I don't know advertising

    amd I don't work in pop culture, Im a stage hand for ballet, American ballet theatre, NYS Ballet, Alvin Ailey, Paul Taylor. And Im amedia buyer for a for-profit company ( conservatives love business I presume)

    By Anonymous RealityInfuriatesDittoheads said, at 24 April, 2009 10:20  


    By Blogger SHUT UP DEM LIARS, at 24 April, 2009 10:25  

  • Mr Ed was a 50's talking horse
    The current Mr Ed is a talking horses arse.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 April, 2009 13:43  

  • RealityInfuriatesDittoheads, why can't you tell the truth. You do not have an IQ of 160, if you did, you would be using you're instead of your. I worked with so many liberals that were the same way. Overpaid and stupid, had to have smart people(not liberals) do their jobs for them. That is another reason for the economy issues. The bank that took down Wachovia, they had to hire managers to do managers jobs, because they were inept. Keep living in your dream world. I do not know you, but I do know you do not work harder than me. I never met a liberal that worked harder than myself at any job I have had. We built this country, not you! What have liberals done for anyone but themselves?????

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 April, 2009 17:45  

  • It's time for MSNBC and GE to realize that there is no way, shape or form that they can recover from the ratings plunge when you have morons like Mathews and Olberman running their mouths! The more they criticize people like us, the lower they will sink. Both MSNBC and CNN should realize that they are hurting themselves for hiding the truth!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 24 April, 2009 21:12  


    By Blogger SHUT UP DEM LIARS, at 25 April, 2009 10:55  

  • For the idiots who keep saying that Fox viewers are poorer you need to know some facts.

    The median income for a Fox viewer is 5,000 more then for a person who watches MSNBC. (68,000 to 63,000)

    Oh, and for all of you people who try to claim that liberals are smarter because College educated voters went for Obama 50% to McCain's 48%; what does it mean when voters who didn't finish High School go for Obama 63% to McCain's 35%?

    By Blogger Unknown, at 26 April, 2009 00:25  

  • Yes, Schultz was a bad choice

    By Blogger Editor, at 26 April, 2009 00:52  

  • "I just had to list my resume"

    That's the great thing about the internet; you can be whoever you want to be.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 April, 2009 05:09  

  • Jared/MOP (or whatever name he used this time) said:

    my salespeople converted on 60% of the calls generated by MNSBCSo that's who is buying those Obama dinner plates that are sure to be a fantastic investment, with only so many firing days....

    By Blogger Chromium, at 26 April, 2009 08:57  

  • Well, now we know. I did not realize that the he/she racho maddow came from airohead amerca. (That's how Obama would say it! you know "his policis", I love the way he says that, you know "everbode'". Now to the point. the same network that has what's her name and Billy Mays and shamwow on, all day, over and over and over, you get it, right. So, msnbc is cheaper to advertise on. I believe it. With the goofffy garbage they advertise, it makes me want to sign up for those internet millions I'm going to make with that last commercial they ran. Maddow, msnbc and shultz. What a team. What was that famous comment, "I seeeeeee noooothinnnng."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26 April, 2009 10:31  

  • Uh, the Democrats are in CHARGE, will continue to stay in charge, and will probably have a super majority in 2011 and way beyond.

    Ratings for Fox versus the rest of the news(where Fox loses) doesn't mean a thing. It's about who's in charge.

    And, the Ed show has been on the air for less than three weeks. It's a little early to call it over.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 27 April, 2009 08:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger