01-21-2019 09:04:27 PM -0800
01-21-2019 05:12:14 PM -0800
01-21-2019 10:26:58 AM -0800
01-21-2019 07:52:07 AM -0800
01-20-2019 01:01:48 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

LibMedia Spins Another Golden Globes Ratings Dip

It is no big secret, even to people who don't watch, that the major entertainment awards shows have been in a ratings free-fall for several years now. The hemorrhaging of viewers has been so bad that the media editor for the left-leaning entertainment site The Wrap recently proposed that the Academy Awards should be hosted by conservative actor James Woods in an attempt to bring back lost viewers.

Sunday's broadcast of the Golden Globe awards didn't reverse the trend, it merely slowed it down. Still, the ratings were the lowest that they have been in quite some time. Many in entertainment media are now attempting to put lipstick on this ratings pig:

The rationale behind that sentiment is that the ratings were up in the 18-49 demographic.

While Entertainment Weekly at least had the sense to temper its enthusiasm by saying the situation was "not as bad as it sounds," New York Magazine's pop culture offshoot Vulture actually called it a "Ratings Win."

Liberals long ago abandoned understanding percentages in order to convince themselves that rich people don't pay as much to the IRS as the rest of us do, so this confusion is somewhat understandable.

It's still garbage though.

The entertainment site Deadline Hollywood (one of my favorites) explains why the enthusiasm about the one demographic bounce is unwarranted:

Last night’s  Andy Samberg and  Sandra Oh hosted ceremony delivered a 5.2 rating among adults 18-49 and 18.6 million viewers.

That’s up 4% in the key demo from the six year low of last year’s Seth Meyers fronted Globes but down 2% in total audience from 2018.

What makes the whole thing even more tainted is that this year’s Globes directly followed a strategically situated massively watched NFL Wild Card playoff game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Chicago Bears. A rare gift of a game that by all reasonable expectations should have handed over a big bounce to the awards show, not basically kept it flat with last year.

While bucking the double digit viewership decline trend that has hobbled the likes of the Oscars, Emmys and Grammys in recent years and matching the demo debut of the short lived Roseanne revival of last March, there is little victory for the Globes to be claimed out of gaining virtually no traction last night.

That's gonna leave a mark.

The Eagles/Bears game was the highest rated NFL Wild Card game since 1994 and had a huge share of the 18-49 demographic. If even a fraction of them were too drunk to turn off their television after the game it would have given the Golden Globes a ratings boost in the demographic.