How many people are watching the impeachment trial? Here are the numbers …

Those empty seats in the Senate House on Thursday? They are emblematic of the public’s reaction to Trump’s second impeachment trial.

If you’ve been glued to every minute of the trial, or even just following the proceedings in half, then you’re part of a special club. You are learning the full history of the crimes committed at the Capitol on January 6. But he is much more connected than the average American adult.

TV Nielsen’s ratings for the first two days of test coverage show that only a small portion of the audience is watching at any given time. The ratings for CNN and MSNBC are rising – and Fox News’s ratings are much weaker. Some people are also watching coverage through broadcast networks, but not in large numbers.

Conclusion: news junkies are dominated by emotional presentations, but a wide range of the nation is not. More casual news consumers are slowly catching up on coverage, watching clips of the Democrat’s performance on news sites or on YouTube, or viewing summaries of party vehicles. This is far from being one of those “letting go of what you’re doing and watching” moments in America.

What the numbers tell us

On Tuesday afternoon, an average of 11 million viewers watched the opening arguments on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, ABC and CBS. (NBC, PBS and other media also broadcast live coverage, but I don’t have exact data for those channels.) On Wednesday afternoon, the same five channels had an average of 12.4 million viewers. This is an average, which means that people came and went all the time and the accumulated audience was much higher. But, given that almost 210 million adults live in the United States, you can conclude that many people think they know how this story ends, so they don’t bother to watch …

>> However: Trump’s second trial is attracting a larger average audience than the first, NYT’s John Koblin points out …
>> On Wednesday, CNN was number 1 overall in the 25-54 demo, while MSNBC prevailed among the total viewers …

>> Online, the streaming audience was lower, but still significant. CNN Digital’s live broadcasts on Tuesday and Wednesday exceeded the equivalent days for the 2019 House impeachment hearings and the 2020 Senate impeachment trial …

Fox viewers do not want to see Democratic arguments

Fox News ended Wednesday morning with 1.4 million viewers. Then the trial began, and Fox’s rating also dropped. Fox hit rock bottom by 1 million at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, although audience levels rose noticeably during a trial break at 1:39 pm, when Fox’s friendly Trump analysis brought some viewers back. The audience returned in style at 5 pm, when Fox cut off the Senate arm and aired “The Five” – ​​2.7 million viewers were there to watch. Some disconnected during “Special Report” at 6, and many more disconnected when Fox resumed test coverage from 6:30 to 7 – Fox plummeted to 1.2 million viewers. The audience ran back, of course, to “Tucker Carlson Tonight”, which reached 3 million. But the average audience of MSNBC and CNN was over 3 million all afternoon! The conclusion is clear: Fox’s base rejected Trump’s accusation. They just wanted to hear the pro-Trump speech …

>> Thought bubble: I know it never would have happened, but what if the Senate had decided to conduct this trial at night, when a prime time audience could have watched it live?

Separating more?

Is this the main result of this experience? New tears in the proverbial American fabric? Even more fights between red and blue?

The insurrection should not be seen as a partisan issue, but it has been, period, period. People withdrew to their corners. Accusations of hypocrisy flew in all directions. The crimes that will never be forgotten by Trump’s critics have already been excused and buried in the memory hole by Trump loyalists. The terms “Trump critics” and “loyal to Trump” shouldn’t even be part of this conversation, but … they are.

What happened at the Capitol on January 6? Trump’s war on the truth has affected how people answer that question. And it’s separating people even more …

Isn’t it worth debating?

Brian Lowry writes: “Discussions on Twitter rarely deserve attention, but I think there is a significant point buried in producer David Simon’s cheerful vulgarity exchange with Hugh Hewitt, in which Hewitt offered Simon the chance to debate his syndicated radio program. It is a favorite tactic of Hewitt, but buried in Simon’s response was this: After betting everything on the defense of the ex-president, you no longer have credibility to be worth debating. This may not be a way to reduce the political divide, but it sends a message that someone like Hewitt – once seen as a fair mediator of conservative ideals – has sacrificed that position in the eyes of many on the left … “

.Source