CNN Ratings Collapse

[Teallaura]

Yes, let's please get back on topic.

But the derail is more fun!


This is about me, isn't it?

[KingsGambit]

Yes, let's please get back on topic.

Um, ignore my last post. That's at least 6-7 pages worth of derail there...

[Cow Poke]

Um, ignore my last post. That's at least 6-7 pages worth of derail there...

It's Tweb.

[Teallaura]

The irony of somebody who by and large supports Trump criticizing someone else for poor diplomacy is not lost on me.

It's only irony if you're dumb enough to think Trump is a diplomat - like an ambassador is supposed to be.





He started it, CP!!!!

[KingsGambit]

It's only irony if you're dumb enough to think Trump is a diplomat - like an ambassador is supposed to be.





He started it, CP!!!!

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

[Cow Poke]

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

I don't see it as diplomacy, so much as his "art of the deal".

[Teallaura]

I thought the general talking point was that Trump could be spearheading an precedented state of peace within the Korean peninsula through his diplomacy?

Er, no. Trump does seem to be opening negotiations, which I support. But no one thinks Trump is a trained diplomat. He's a businessman and approaches negotiations with a hammer or honey - whatever seems to work.


You're trying to get us both in trouble, aren't you?

[Mountain Man]

I don't see it as diplomacy, so much as his "art of the deal".

Businessmen and politicians are both diplomats. The difference is that politicians have the primary concern of wanting the other guy to like them even if nothing is accomplished. Businessmen say, I don't care if you like me, we're here to do business.

[oxmixmudd]

"We have some serious concerns as Bob does not seem fully up to speed with regards to policy."

"There may be some issue with regards to Bob's understanding of policy."

"We are concerned at Bob's lack of preparedness regarding the policy meeting."

And so on - not rocket science to just not sound like a jerk.


Being tactful is at the core of being a diplomat. Being unable, as opposed to unwilling, brings the Ambassador's qualifications into question. Being unwilling brings his fitness to serve into question.

This kind of rookie mistake is not even slightly okay in any competent diplomatic corps.

No - I think those are too toned down if the actual assessment is inept. What you say above means - we should tread lightly, inept means - oh dear, we need to be VERY careful here.

If he's actually inept, it's going to be insulting. But if that's reality, what is one to do? You could say, he is completely unqualified to be president. Is that better? Honestly its not as accurate. You'd need to add things like "He is likely to accidentally divulge critical information" etc etc - is that better? Perhaps a long list of each thing he can be expected to bungle might get you there, but inept is much more concise and removes all doubt as to what he can be trusted with - which would be nothing - assuming it's true.

So it would seem to me the broader concern - on both sides - should be if it is true. If it is not - then perhaps the UK needs a new ambassador. If it is, then perhaps we need a new president.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Anyway...

Q: Mr. President, do you have a reaction to the British ambassador’s comments that were reported about today?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven’t seen it. But, you know, we’ve had our little ins and outs with — with a couple of countries. And I would say that the UK and the ambassador has not served the UK well, I can tell you that. We’re not — we’re not big fans of that man, and he has not served the UK well. So I can understand it. And I can say things about him, but I won’t bother.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

That was a very diplomatic response.

[Teallaura]

No - I think those are too toned down if the actual assessment is inept. What you say above means - we should tread lightly, inept means - oh dear, we need to be VERY careful here.

If he's actually inept, it's going to be insulting. You could say, he is completely unqualifie qualified to be president. Is that better? Honestly its not as accurate. You'd need to add thnigs like "He is likely to accidentally divulge critical information" etc etc - is that better? Perhaps a long list of each thing he can be expected to bungle might get you there, but inept is much more concise and removes all doubt as to what he can be trusted with - which would be nothing - assuming it's true.

Jim

And it ends up causing a diplomatic incident - which is bad. No, it's perfectly possible to do tactfully- especially using specifics. Save sounding like a jerk for when no microphones are near - and certainly not in writing.

[oxmixmudd]

And it ends up causing a diplomatic incident - which is bad. No, it's perfectly possible to do tactfully- especially using specifics. Save sounding like a jerk for when no microphones are near - and certainly not in writing.

Well - I suppose if you know that there is no such thing as secure communication, then you do need to speak in code. And it does seem that is the case.

Jim

[Teallaura]

Anyway...

Q: Mr. President, do you have a reaction to the British ambassador’s comments that were reported about today?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven’t seen it. But, you know, we’ve had our little ins and outs with — with a couple of countries. And I would say that the UK and the ambassador has not served the UK well, I can tell you that. We’re not — we’re not big fans of that man, and he has not served the UK well. So I can understand it. And I can say things about him, but I won’t bother.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...nd-transcript/

That was a very diplomatic response.

No, it isn't. It's better than the ambassador did, however.


Inept: getting recalled because you didn't use a thesaurus!

[Teallaura]

Well - I suppose if you know that there is no such thing as secure a communication, then you do need to speak in code. It does seem that is the case.

Jim

I fully agree.

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile...

Can CNN’s Ratings Really Drop Any Further? (Hint: Yes. Yes They Can.)

So, it stands to reason that a cable station that spends most of its time hating on Trump would soar in the ratings.

Think again.

The liberal network CNN plunged to 15th place in primetime over the last three months, losing nearly 20% of its viewership in the process.

The stats are striking when one compares CNN to Fox News. Fox has 2.4 million primetime viewers, CNN just 761,000. Total day numbers: Fox 1.32 million; CNN 541,000. Those numbers equate to a 2% drop for Fox News — but a whopping 18% plunge for CNN.

CNN’s best-rated show was "Cuomo Prime Time," which came in at No. 25, but fell short of a million viewers at 936,000. Anderson Cooper drew 892,000 viewers, Don Lemon 833,000 viewers and Jake Tapper just 699,000.

Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow's ratings at MSNBC have also plunged. The liberal hostess pushed the Russia-Trump collusion for more than two years, but special counsel Robert Mueller’s report said there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge.

In May, Maddow’s show suffered its worst ratings since Trump took office, losing 500,000 viewers, Fox News reported.


There appears to be a direct connection to the Mueller report, which was released April 18. In the first quarter of 2019, Maddow averaged 3.1 million viewers each night. But in May, she averaged just 2.6 million viewers.

“Maddow lost nearly 500,000 viewers for her first episode following the release of Barr’s letter,” Fox reported. “Then she plummeted 13 percent in April compared to the same month in 2018, according to TVNewser, falling behind 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' in the process. In May she averaged 2.6 million – her worst month since Trump took office – and a far cry from the 3.1 million viewers she averaged during the first quarter of 2019.”

Back to CNN, some conservatives who once appeared regularly on the show have been let go, with one complaining that it is now the "hate Trump" network.

So, from the Clinton News Network to the Hate Trump Network.