Last Thursday, the New York Times predicted a gloomy falloff (login required) in ratings, viewership, and thus advertisement dollars for the Fox News Channel after the election. While it cited the economy as the main reason, the article does speculate that a big Democratic win in November would mean that fewer people were interested in the type of broadcasting done by Fox. (I don’t buy that)

It goes on to say that paying the big ratings guys like Bill O’Reilly might spell trouble for the network.

And the tipping point for the O’Reilly must have been the analysis on ratings. While it acknowledges that O’Reilly is still the biggest, it mentions his nemesis Keith Olbermann like this:

…on Tuesday night, MSNBC scored its best night ever in prime time, finishing first among the news networks in the audience group that most news advertisers seek, adults from 25 to 54 years old. Three of the MSNBC hosts — Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow — won in that audience group, with Mr. Olbermann scoring his highest number ever and beating Mr. O’Reilly by the largest margin ever in that group, 935,000 viewers to 742,000.

Predictably, O’Reilly flew into an unholy rage at the mere suggestion that those MSNBC pinheads might be a threat to his huge, throbbing ratings.

First, he declared war on the New York Times. Literally.

In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight: “Reality Check,” with a war. And it is a war, ladies and gentlemen, between The New York Times and FOX News, and it has broken out into the open.

The Times Thursday used the announcement of my new contract to put forth that FOX News may be in trouble ratings-wise. The article, written by Bill Carter, raises questions about how much longer FOX News will be successful. In the body of the article, Carter raises the absurd contention that MSNBC is competitive with FNC.

Hey, Bill, are you going to print that last night I beat their guttersnipe at 8 by two million viewers, 200,000 in the key demo? Are you going to print that, sir? Of course you won’t. Why? Because you’re corrupt and you ought to quit the business.

Awesome. The silverback rears up to protect its turf, telling the lesser male to leave its territory.

But here’s where it gets good/funny. O’Reilly, offended that anyone would question the size of his…audience, screams that the measuring stick is flawed. (Emphasis mine)

While FOX News continues to rule, there are major problems with the Nielsen ratings system. There have been wild swings in the ratings that have benefited MSNBC. We’ve asked for an explanation of those wild swings. Nielsen can’t explain them and those swings are unprecedented in the television business.

An examination of Nielsen shows that their personnel is overwhelmingly liberal. Twenty-six Nielsen executives, including CEO Susan Whiting, have donated to the Democrats. Two to the Republicans.

The bottom line on this is there may be some big-time cheating going on in the ratings system, and we hope the feds will investigate. Any fraud in the television rating system affects all Americans.

Yes, Bill. The ratings, which you’ve been happy to tout nightly for years, are somehow flawed now that you’re not doing as well as you’d like. Brilliant.

Also, if you’re a “news” show, you shouldn’t be concerned with ratings in the first place. The fact that O’Reilly mentions his ratings virtually every time he’s on the air - radio or TV - should trouble even his most loyal viewers. Someone that concerned with the ratings will do anything to keep them, so we should expect to see him going further and further to provoke, irritate, goad, and bloviate as his ratings flatten along with his sizable ego. It will almost be fun to watch.

For this story alone, I award Mr. O’Reilly 2 STFU* hats for a great first attempt at conspiracy theory.

* STFU hats (Stuperb Tin Foil Uber hats) are available now!

Another gem from the National Review:

Former Fetus Barack Obama [Ed Whelan]

Nearly 48 years ago, a young woman, not yet 18, became pregnant in her freshman year of college. Living in a time and place in which abortion was generally illegal, she proceeded to marry the father of her child and gave birth to a son.
Perhaps she would have done so irrespective of the abortion laws at the time, even if, say, she lived in a legal culture that celebrated abortion as a fundamental right. Very possibly not. (I haven’t found any statistics on the percentage of pregnant college freshmen who abort their pregnancies, but indirect indications suggest that it’s very high.)

Barack Obama may actually believe, as he stated yesterday, that Roe v. Wade “was rightly decided.” But it may be very lucky for him, as the son born of that woman, that it hadn’t been decided a dozen or so years earlier.

That Obama may owe his very life to a pre-Roe legal regime that banned abortion is, to be sure, not necessarily a reason that he should favor that regime (though I can’t help noting that Justice Thomas’s critics recklessly accuse him of hypocrisy for opposing racial-preference plans that they say he benefited from). But it ought to lead Obama and others to think more carefully about the valuable role that protective abortion laws play.

What the hell?

This type of garbage probably doesn’t even merit refuting, but I can’t help myself.

Quote:

Perhaps she would have done so irrespective of the abortion laws at the time, even if, say, she lived in a legal culture that celebrated abortion as a fundamental right. Very possibly not. (I haven’t found any statistics on the percentage of pregnant college freshmen who abort their pregnancies, but indirect indications suggest that it’s very high.)

Translation: I have no evidence to support my claim, but I will assert it is so by mentioning the words “indirect indications.” Young people are slutty murderers.

Quote:

That Obama may owe his very life to a pre-Roe legal regime that banned abortion is, to be sure, not necessarily a reason that he should favor that regime (though I can’t help noting that Justice Thomas’s critics recklessly accuse him of hypocrisy for opposing racial-preference plans that they say he benefited from). But it ought to lead Obama and others to think more carefully about the valuable role that protective abortion laws play.

Translation: I oppose the Roe v Wade decision. I oppose affirmative action. Selfishness is a good standard or a bad standard, depending on my opinion on the issue at hand.

Got it.

Googling Edward Whalen reveals that he’s the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Antonin Scalia. By all accounts he is an expert on the Constitution and court issues. Much of the commentary I read was thoughtful, principled, researched and consistent.

This piece, however, is absurd. How does an article like this add anything to the discussion of Roe v Wade?

• Perhaps

• Very possibly

• Indirect indication suggest

• May

• It may be

• Not necessarily

The National Review, once the juggernaut of conservative thought, is going downhill - Chris Buckley was right to leave.