"Keith's numbers are quite literally going through the roof"

[kpete]

October 31, 2006 at 18:40:35
Keith Olbermann Can Rest Easy
by Jpol

http://www.opednews.com

The ratings are out for the October broadcast month, the first full month of the 2006-2007 TV season, and for those of you who are fretting about whether the bravery of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann would motivate his bosses at NBC to send him packing a la Phil Donahue, you can probably rest easy. Keith's numbers are quite literally going through the roof, and he seems to be bringing the rest of MSNBC's primetime lineup along for the ride.

.............

What a difference a year makes:

Olbermann delivered 637,000 total viewers in October 2006.

That is an increase of 67% versus October 2005

Olbermann left the other MSNBC talk shows in the dust, delivering 39% more viewers than "Hardball" (457,000 viewers, +5% versus a year ago); and 52% more viewers that Joe Scarborough's 9pm show (418,000 viewers, +9% versus Rita Cosby a year ago).


MORE AT:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_jpol_061031_keith_olbermann_can_.htm

[Eric J in MN]

1. Not "literally" but this is good news.

They're "figuratively" going through the roof.

[Berry Cool]

4. Yeah, numbers can't "literally" go anywhere.

Especially not through a roof that is only figurative.

Ouch.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. "Quite literally

We are misusing 'literally'."

That's one that really bugs me.

[The Witch]

29. Oh! My fellow copy editors!!

:cry: :hi: :cry: :hi: I feel at home somehow!

[DavidDvorkin]

35. I'm not a copy editor

Just a cranky author.

(Who really values good copy editors!)

[melody]

52. I'm a cranky author, also.

I know the difference between casual usage and formal, New York Times "Book of Style" anal retentivism.

I grasped her meaning. So did most other readers.

[RebelOne]

31. Well, "literally" is actually correct.

I'm a copy editor. And in one of my grammar books, it states to use "literally" only when describing reality.

[DavidDvorkin]

34. That's why it's not correct

His numbers didn't go through the roof in reality.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. It's a metaphor, and a perfectly valid one.

[spooky3]

45. it's not an appropriate usage, and here's why not

from an expert on usage:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/literally.html

"Like “incredible,” “literally” has been so overused as a sort of vague intensifier that it is in danger of losing its literal meaning. It should be used to distinguish between a figurative and a literal meaning of a phrase. It should not be used as a synonym for “actually” or “really.” Don’t say of someone that he “literally blew up” unless he swallowed a stick of dynamite."

[Erechtheides]

46. well, speaking literally

It's a perfectly valid metaphor without the word "literally," which implies that it is not in fact a metaphor at all.

[TroglodyteScholar]

50. If it's a METAPHOR then by definition it can't be LITERAL n/t

[Cocoa]

53. exactly

because it's a metaphor, "literally" is incorrect.

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. No. language is not an exact science - much as the Academie

Francaise and scholars generally would like it to be.

It is people who make a country's language, not a Pantheon of the most erudite scholars. Of course, the latter try to formalise it as best they can, and perhaps rightly so. But they are always fighting a losing battle against Anglicisms and Americanisms.

Remember Churchill's riposte: "Up with that I will not put." I don't know if either of you have translated or interpeted professionally, but if you have, you should realise that translating the source text in a natural style is of great importance. Apart from technical fields, such as the law (particularly patents), engineering, etc, all but paramount importance.

We recognise most educated English-speaking foreigners, because they suffer "word blindness", their inability to use conjunctions, prepositions, etc, in the way we do, not their vocabulary or ablity to communicate esoteric ideas - which is likely to be superior to that of most native speakers.

Having said all that, I'd have to agree that the word, "literally", very often is used apparently simply for emphasis, without reference to word's actual meaning.

[Cocoa]

57. that's true, but it doesn't apply in this case

the basic thing about words is that words have meaning, and the very meaning of the word literal is that a metaphor is not being used.

It is used as you say, for emphasis, but that usage is incorrect.

[KurtNYC]

41. They love hyperbole

and since we have built up a tolerance to their hyperbole, they have increased the dosage to "quite literally."

[spooky3]

44. Here's an English professor who backs you up!

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/literally.html

[John Gauger]

51. "Quite Literally"

Not just literally, quite literally. Not only are those numbers going through that roof in a literal fasion, but in a way that is more literal than other happenings that carry the moniker 'literal.'

You can't have a degree of literality. Either the event is actually occurring or it is not. And it is not, so literally is wrong as well.

[Nickster]

56. Literally? :-) sorry.....n/t

[gully]

12. Well, this is a "proverbial" roof.

;) Can they literally go through a proverbial roof?

[BlooInBloo]

16. Just as easily as they go thru real roofs. lol!

[gully]

20. LOL

I literally laughed my ass off at that.

[BlooInBloo]

23. I was rolling on the proverbial floor laughing! Phew! Somebody stop us! lol!

[gully]

24. LOL

I'm literally out of proverbial comebacks.

Sorry, best I can do. ;)

[BlooInBloo]

25. I'm virtually empty too. No prob :)

[ProgressiveFool]

49. Oh my! I hope you found it afterwards

nt

[Odin2005]

27. OMG, look at all those numbers flying out of KO's office!!!

:evilgrin:

[Erechtheides]

47. I'm glad this usage bugs other people

My fiance saw a show recently in which a casting director described seeing an audition tape:
"I was literally blown away!"

[wordpix]

2. glad to be part of KO's success as a fan since his first appearance on MSNBC

:patriot:

[RevCheesehead]

3. So glad to see the rest of the world is discovering Keith.

Thank you for posting this!! :)

[Clark2008]

15. Hey Rev... we were right, we were right, we were right!

And we've been correct for oh, these many years.

:hug:

[WolverineDG]

32. Think we need to expand the clubhouse?

Looks like we're getting more new folks! :bounce:

dg

[TexasLawyer]

6. Gotta love these new stats!

Thanks for posting this, kpete! It makes me happy.

Olbermann delivered 637,000 total viewers in October 2006.

# That is an increase of 67% versus October 2005

# Olbermann left the other MSNBC talk shows in the dust, delivering 39% more viewers than "Hardball" (457,000 viewers, +5% versus a year ago); and 52% more viewers that Joe Scarborough's 9pm show (418,000 viewers, +9% versus Rita Cosby a year ago).

# Olbermann is still number 3 behind FOX and CNN, but not by all that much. O'Reilly is still way ahead at 2,081,000 viewers, but that is -22% and more than half-a-million viewers versus a year ago. Paula Zahn is also -22% and beat Olberman by a mere 2,000 viewers.

# Olbermann was delivering 10% of the total 3-network total viewer pie (FOX, MSNBC, and CNN) in October 2005. In October 2006 he is up to 19%. That represents a 111% share increase.

Olbermann delivered 233,000 Adults 25-54 (the "money" demographic) in October 2006. That is an increase of 61% versus October 2005

[Kolesar]

48. < 1% of Americans are these fools who put Fox News on all day

They all show up at the "altar" of "the big head" and take in his holy gospel every evening at 8pm eastern. Numbers like two million are still smaller than a hit tv show.

(Fox News actually had to "animate" a moving logo because their viewers had the Fox News logo being burned into their CRTs. Sad. Literally sad.)

[IWantAChange]

7. Who the hell 25-54 would watch Billo?

My guess is the greatest proportion are 45+ and aren't used to thinking for themselves.

:shrug:

[David Zephyr]

8. Congrats to Keith. Thanks kpete for the good news.

:thumbsup:

[durrrty libby]

9. That is great news about Keith, but I don't get why so many watch

O'liely. Gag...he is such a jackass and so not
interesting or entertaining.

[Clark2008]

17. I think about 500,000 of those "viewers" are near-empty

barbershops and bars and auto repair waiting rooms - all turned on because the owner thought it was "cool" back when Faux was in its "heyday," and, now it's habit.

I change the channel, myself. :)

[WolverineDG]

33. Faux is on more cable outlets

plus it's also on in more doctor's offices, waiting rooms, etc.

dg

[Patiod]

36. Somebody at my gym always asks for Faux to be put on

And the way things work, you can't ask for something to be turned OFF - you can only ask if they can put something ON for you. Faux is ALWAYS on one of the 4 TVs.

So if Faux is on, I always ask for Animal Planet or whatever channel the Phils are on and point out that no one seems to be watching TV # (whichever one is tuned to Faux).

[calimary]

10. Thanks for this, kpete! Excellent news!

K&R!

Maybe someday my rants will be as good as Keith's...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2918082&mesg_id=2918082

[williesgirl]

11. Glad to be 5th vote

[Mr_Spock]

13. What a difference a year makes:

Olbermann delivered 637,000 total viewers in October 2006.


That is an increase of 67% versus October 2005


Olbermann left the other MSNBC talk shows in the dust, delivering 39% more viewers than "Hardball" (457,000 viewers, +5% versus a year ago); and 52% more viewers that Joe Scarborough's 9pm show (418,000 viewers, +9% versus Rita Cosby a year ago).


Olbermann is still number 3 behind FOX and CNN, but not by all that much. O'Reilly is still way ahead at 2,081,000 viewers, but that is -22% and more than half-a-million viewers versus a year ago. Paula Zahn is also -22% and beat Olberman by a mere 2,000 viewers.


Olbermann was delivering 10% of the total 3-network total viewer pie (FOX, MSNBC, and CNN) in October 2005. In October 2006 he is up to 19%. That represents a 111% share increase.

Olbermann delivered 233,000 Adults 25-54 (the "money" demographic) in October 2006.



That is an increase of 61% versus October 2005


Again this places Olbermann well ahead of the other MSNBC talk shows. He is delivering 34% more Adults 25-54 than "Hardball" (174,000 Adults 25-54, +5% versus a year ago); and 53% more viewers that Joe Scarborough's 9pm show (152,000 Adults 25-54, +13% versus Rita Cosby a year ago).


Again, Fox's Bill O'Reilly still leads the time period with 470,000 Adults 25-54, but that is -9% versus a year ago, and over at CNN Paula Zahn is now in third place behind Olbermann with 217,000 Adults 25-54, -7% versus a year ago.

And again, Olbermann's share of the 8pm 3-network Adult 25-54 pie is way up -- from 16% in October 2005 to 25% in October 2006 -- a 56% increase.

[dalaigh lllama]

14. two other things to take into consideration

There's quite a few places that don't get MSNBC with their cable package. We're in a rural area and we can't get it. Also, there's still quite a few businesses that always seem to have Faux news on, altho I'm seeing less and less as time goes by. Hopefully business proprietors are catching on.

[Hamlette]

21. we get it but it isn't listed in our paper's TVGuide.

why is that?

I should complain.

[champt10]

18. Im glad I joined the Ride

I dont even remember how i got into Keith, but Im glad i did. I wish though he could have some special comment EVERY day

[newyawker99]

38. Hi champt10!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AwakeAtLast]

19. W00T!!!!

:kick:

Anybody know how that compares to Faux? :shrug:

[sendero]

22. The only thing the MSM likes better ..

... than Republican rule. Massive ad dollars. :)

[xxqqqzme]

26. does raspy rita still have a show?

I just realized I haven't been diving for the remote the second Coutdown is over. I haven't even missed her until I saw the name.

[Poiuyt]

37. She's on in the afternoon

She anchors the regular news and comes on at 12 (CT). I USED to like to watch MSNBC while I was eating my lunch, now I watch CNN. I can't stand that voice! Plus she tends to emphasize the local crime/missing white girl stories too much.

[tinfoil tiaras]

28. Good.

Countdown is my new favorite show. I saw it on Monday night and I was instantly hooked. Keith Olbermann is my new favorite person. Ever.

If MSNBC EVER cancells Countdown, I will never forgive them.

[Rosemary2205]

30. MSNBC is too often on upgraded cable only.

In 3 major markets I've been in they are not included in regular cable - I can't watch because I am unable to pay the extra $40 a month to get a whole package of upgraded channels in order to get MSNBC. If they would make sure it's packaged along with CNN and FOX on regular cable instead of being an expensive upgrade then they would have more viewers. IMHO.

[Clinton Crusader]

39. AND he's got a COMMENT tonight! n/t

[Cameron27]

40. Woooo Hoooo

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Nimrod2005]

42. WE LOVE KO....

[Mynameissalvatore]

54. Whats nice about this is...

..I'm sure he is attracting people who don't share his opinion of the president. I remember when Howard Stern was on the regular radio and had huge ratings. The people that liked him tuned in for less time than the people who said they didn't like him. They tuned in longer cuz they wanted to hear what he would say next. The people who liked him knew that he would say something outrageous and didn't need to stick around to hear it.
I'm sure it is somewhat the same scenario here. Hopefully he is waking some people up that need to hear it and not just preaching to the choir.

[Vidar]

58. Good for KO.