The Truth About Glenn’s Ratings

A quick search on Google for Beck Ratings returns the following results:

Why is Glenn Beck so angry? Ratings.‎

Glenn Beck's Ratings Collapse

HELLO AMERICA? Glenn Beck Posts Biggest Ratings Drop Of Any Cable...

Glenn Beck's Ratings Have Dropped by 50% in One Year

Glenn beck's ratings fall again; he invades poland

Glenn Beck Ratings Tumble vs. Last October

Glenn Beck Limps Into 2011 With Falling Ratings

The latest Glenn Beck ratings collapse‎

The truth about Glenn Beck's TV ratings: They're down

Did Glenn Beck just post a new ratings low for 2010?‎

How low (in the ratings) can Glenn Beck go?‎

This is soooooo weird.  I had the impression that Glenn was moderately successful in the ratings.  But, no.  Clearly his ratings have been in a state of utter collapse at essentially every moment of his entire television career.  The last headline is my favorite, considering it came from July 31, 2007.  Solid prediction guys.

The same people have been trying to prove the same thing, idiotically, every day since then.  Seriously, if Glenn has been collapsing in the ratings for this long—how do you even know who he is?

Since the final show has finally come, let’s look at the truth.  To be thorough, we’ll examine every conceivable way that you could measure ratings success.  Whenever possible, I’ll use January 2011/1st quarter numbers, because they offer the least favorable comparisons for us.   This is insanely lengthy, but I figured I’d do it once and get it over with.

1--Beck vs previous show airing on network in time slot

Glenn has increased the ratings of the 5pm time slot at Fox by 131% compared to the programming airing before his start. In case you don’t know how to read percentages, that’s doubling the ratings, plus another 31%.

2--Beck vs Lead-in on network

How did Glenn do in comparison to his lead in hour?  He increased the ratings by about 95%.

3--Beck vs competition in time slot

This one is so easy that it’s probably not worth spending too much time on. We’ll use the quarterly ratings.

FOXN Beck 462

CNN Situation Room 210

(These numbers are in the thousands, and are the ‘demo’ ratings most utilized by advertisers.  Basically it’s just adults between the ages of 25-54.)

Note: it appears that the ratings I’m using include Situation Room’s 6pm hour which slightly increased the average.  This was also a very good quarter for CNN with events like Egypt and the Tsunami where they excel.

That being said—even using their inflated numbers, Glenn Beck beats its closest competition by 120%.

Remember, when Glenn took over the 5pm slot, both MSNBC and CNN were very close to winning that time slot, particularly through the election.  In fact, in January ’09 on the days before Glenn took over, CNN actually tied Fox.  Ummm…that didn’t happen afterwards.

**It should be noted here, that with the possible exception of legendary hit programs like American Idol, no show on television is judged by any standard other than #1, 2, or 3 on this list.

4--Beck vs Everyone else at 5pm combined

FOXN Beck 462

CNN Situation Room 210

MSNBC Hardball 168

HLN Showbiz 78

Note: Along with the note above on Situation Room, these numbers include Hardball’s 7pm rerun, which raised its average significantly.  Still, Glenn Beck defeated all other cable news shows combined at 5pm, even in a supposedly terrible quarter.

As a TV executive I was speaking with recently told me: “Glenn Beck is the highest rated regularly scheduled show in the history of cable news at 5pm.”

5--Beck vs Everyone else at every other network regardless of time

This measure puts Glenn against all of the prime time programming of all of the competing networks, even though his show does not air in prime time (it’s 2pm on the west coast remember).

There’s a measure in TV ratings called the HUT level (households using television). To boil it down, for every million households with a TV, about 400,000 are watching something during our time slot.  During prime time that number is more like 640,000, in other words 60% more available households watching television.  That makes it a lot harder to get an audience at 5pm than in prime time.

Regardless, Glenn Beck on Fox News still trounced everybody.

FOXN Beck 462

CNN Cooper 318

CNN Morgan 302

MSNBC Maddow 295

Despite the fact that 5pm has far fewer available people to watch TV, Glenn still beat every single show on every competing network by a minimum of 45%.

6—Beck vs Everyone else on Fox News regardless of time

This matches Glenn up against the entire lineup of Fox News Channel, regardless of time.  Again, even though there are larger available audiences in prime time, Glenn performed very well. Throughout our run at FNC, and possibly since the beginning of time, Bill O’Reilly basically slaughtered everyone in the ratings.  After that, Glenn, Brett Baier, Shep, Hannity and Greta bounced back-and-forth between 2nd and 6th.  That quarter Glenn finished 4th.

7--Glenn Beck vs Glenn Beck

When you have a show this successful, the only way to argue its failure is to compare it to itself.  So, the media took the peak of our ratings, usually January of 2010, and compared it against everything else.  In April 2010, our ratings were supposedly collapsing as compared to January 2010.  In November 2010, they were supposedly collapsing as compared to January 2010. Then, they were supposedly collapsing in January 2011 as compared to January 2010. Then, the quarter including January 2011 supposedly collapsed as compared to the quarter including January 2010.

Yup, the first quarter of 2010 was a great quarter in the ratings.  Health care was at its fever pitch, and Scott Brown was on the scene to (almost) save the day.  That’s why January of 2011 was a down month for basically every single cable news show in comparison (there might be an exception or two among shows that no one watches.) We also aired our highest rated episode of our entire time on television during January 2010.

So, left-leaning blogs and media reported that our ratings had dropped by 46%.  But, knowing the how the news cycle works (they don’t schedule news events annually so that news channels can fairly compare ratings) does that number actually mean anything?

The first question you must ask to find out, which a few did, was how did other shows on Fox News do?  Well, every one of them was down.  Bret Baier and Shep Smith dropped by percentages in the mid-20’s, O’Reilly dropped by 30%, Hannity 38%, and Greta 47%.  Does that mean these shows suddenly started sucking?  No.  It was all about the news cycle.

But—wait—doesn’t this show that Glenn dropped as much or more than everyone else?  To know if that’s significant or not you have to ask—what did he drop from? You see—Glenn dropped more than other shows, because he had GAINED more than other shows during the previous year.  Here’s a graph to show what I’m talking about.  These are the ratings changes on primetime shows on Fox not including Glenn in Jan 2009-11.

As you can see, all shows on Fox showed a bump from 2009 to 2010, followed by a drop back to the norm in 2011.   Now, let’s insert 5pm pre-Glenn Jan 2009, and bring it to Jan 2011.

As you can see, the 5pm hour spiked much, much higher than other shows between 2009-10—and despite the following years fall, still increased ratings by 60% in the two year period, despite most Fox shows being around flat.

Despite the nonsense that his political opponents and haters attempt to spew, Glenn Beck on Fox News is one of the biggest ratings successes in the history of the format.  This follows another triple digit percentage ratings increase on our previous show on Headline News.  Next up-GBTV.

Join us for the next chapter.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.