Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Bill O'Reilly is Irrelevant

Posted by Cenk Uygur at 8:17 AM on July 14, 2006.


Hint: his fans won't be around for too much longer...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Cenk Uygur in your
mailbox!

 

This commentary originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

Here's a startling number. The average age of Bill O'Reilly's audience is 71. You didn't see that wrong -- 71 years old!

If you've been retired for several years, you're still several years younger than the average Bill O'Reilly viewer.

I don't have anything against old people, really old people, but it's hard to say that O'Reilly's audience is the future. Half of them would be lucky to make it past the decade.

So, it turns out this big, bad, powerful O'Reilly is basically doing a show at a senior citizen's center. Are O'Reilly's viewers going to determine where this country is heading? We can't even tell where they're heading because they won't turn off their left blinker.

I think the formative years are between the ages of 14 and 24. That's when people set their worldview and form most of their conceptions. When Bill O'Reilly's audience was going through their formative years, it was 1949 to 1959. I'm not kidding, do the math.

Some could argue that some of the people of that era grew up in a different world than we did. Some in the South and other regions grew up with a certain ideology that might predispose them to listen to what O'Reilly spews today. I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. You do the math.

My dad is 68, making him younger than the average O'Reilly viewer, but within the ballpark. He is as sharp as anyone I know. He is smart, engaged and an incredibly productive member of society. So, this is not a diss on our older generation. But he grew up in a house that didn't even have electricity (granted it was in southeastern Turkey). If he is several years younger than O'Reilly's average viewer, it's hard to argue that O'Reilly's views are going to shape where this country is going in the future.

Given these facts, it's not hard to see why O'Reilly is losing viewers. They're not dying to watch him, they're dying while watching him. His audience is so old Barbara Bush was jailbait when they were growing up. His audience is so old they remember how hot Betty Rubble was in high school. His audience is so old they don't remember when Iraq was like the Garden of Eden, they remember when Iraq was the Garden of Eden.

Let's get real, O'Reilly's audience has fallen and they can't get up.

Digg!

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide.


Black Republican Gets Enraged Over Katrina at RNC
Founder of HipHopRepublicans becomes violent with Cenk.
September 4, 2008.
Bush Destroying the Environment on His Way Out
From oil drilling to the Endangered Species Act, Bush is dooming our planet.
August 13, 2008.
White House Ordered CIA Forgeries to Wage Iraq War
Ron Suskind's new book offers the smoking gun on Bush admin's deception.
August 6, 2008.
Obama Gets "the Idea" of America
Breaking down Obama's major address in Berlin, Germany.
July 25, 2008.
John McCain Calls Social Security an "Absolute Disgrace"
Not in an I-want-to-make-it- better way, but more in a I-get-this-about-as-much-as-I-get- the-internet way.
July 11, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Most of these geezers watch daily
Posted by: ghoster on Jul 14, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The watch daily because for them it is a new show every day. They don't remember yesterday. How else can he have any ratings?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What will YOU be called? Posted by: Vietnam Vet
» RE: What will YOU be called? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: What will YOU be called? Posted by: Vietnam Vet
» RE: What will YOU be called? Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: What will YOU be called? Posted by: American Reflections
respect
Posted by: coldeye on Jul 14, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is a valid point to the limited appeal of the O'reilly factor if the data about viewers is true. However the tone of the article and the previous response to mine is condescending and disrespectful.

O'Reilly seems to get a wide variety of guests from all spectra. Thus I question the demographic claim. News shows generally have an "older" demographic, but that is a sad comment on the curiousity and knowledge of folks under 30 or 35, not on the reliabilty of the intellect of older people. My point is, if O'Reilly has such a limited audience, he would have a hard time getting the guests he gets. Prominent people(and yes, some are just the subjects of crime or neighborhood type stories) have agents and are media savvy themselves. They are very conscious if newsmakers watch.

These news cable shows all have low ratings compared with networks. They are a success if they gather influential viewers and/or people of a higher income demographic.

thus, I question the "71" age claim, but even if the demographic were 55, which is "old" for TV, that can be a very desireable demographic from a political or economic viewpoint.

You may not like Fox's outlook. But don't question their business saavy. They do much better than MSNBC or CNN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: respect Posted by: DoctorAndy
The Author Got It Totally Wrong
Posted by: coldeye on Jul 14, 2006 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Preface: I am not an O'Reilly viewer usually although I've watched him. I'm a few years younger than the 71 "average" the author above claims for the O'Reilly viewer.]


The NY Times article states that the median, not the average age of O'Reilly is 71. "Average" is not "median". In fact, there is quite a difference.

Ironically, the competitor with more "liberal" views. Olbermann on MSNBC, who has lower ratings even with younger viewers than O'reilly according to the Times, has a median average of 59, which is pretty old too.

Thus, half of O'Reilly's viewers are under 71, and based on the article the author above relied on, we don't know what the distribution by age strata is.

So his smirking wiseass article should be given the respect it deserves. None. Why it could have been written by a senile young man!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Author Got It Totally Wrong Posted by: yoursfaithfully
Moonglow
Posted by: Moonglow193 on Jul 14, 2006 10:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let us not forget, average age or not, elders in our society tend to be an age bracket that votes. 15% of our population are now considered elders and according to the 2004 census:

Citizens age 65 and older had the highest registration rate (79 percent) while those age 18 to 24 had the lowest (58 percent). The youngest group also had the lowest voting rate (47 percent), while those age 45 and older had the highest turnout (about 70 percent).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is a class A jackass!
Posted by: Vietnam Vet on Jul 14, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the article to be nothing short of an attack on senior citizens, who, by the way, vote in larger numbers than the younger generation. I am 71, a registered democrat, not an O'Reilly fan, and, believe it or not, still in control of my faculties. In fact, given the content of the article, I am probably more in control of mine than HE is of his! Those over 71 are still voters, and it is the vote that is going to determine the future of this great nation, not groundless rhetoric. The alternet, nor any other media site, blogs included, need persons like the author posting senseless babble and calling it a rationale opinion. I do not suspect that persons of his ilk will contribute much to the future of the nation either. Pardon the ad hominem attack, but he brought it upon himself with such useless and unfounded trash!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on bro Posted by: coldeye
me too
Posted by: drmflorida on Jul 14, 2006 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to concur, I think this article (and some earlier comments) was beneath alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what if Oreilly is off, Faux-News will just put a young version of him in his place !
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 14, 2006 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the author thinks that people will be out of the dark when O-reilly's gone, his completely wrong. "Conservatives" have been just like Al Quaida in cloning their followers and keeping replacements in hand ready in case of retirement or being forced out because of a legal problem !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soldier's Comment
Posted by: S2_369 on Jul 14, 2006 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And here is why this author is irrelevant: You embellish in the very same mudslinging that Bill O'Reilly is known to bring to his job on a daily basis. This post has detracted from the real issues at hand, of which many other Alternet contributors have diligently been tracking.

Precisely why many Soldiers like myself find people like yourself, and, let's say, Michael Moore, increasingly irrelevant; sensationalization and flashy articles that really do nothing to inform people at large about real issues (much like Congress has been wasting our time with ridiculous issues like flag-waving).

PV2 Marc T
Intelligence Analyst

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soldier's Comment
Posted by: S2_369 on Jul 14, 2006 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And here is why this author is irrelevant: You embellish in the very same mudslinging that Bill O'Reilly is known to bring to his job on a daily basis. This post has detracted from the real issues at hand, of which many other Alternet contributors have diligently been tracking.

Precisely why many Soldiers like myself find people like yourself, and, let's say, Michael Moore, increasingly irrelevant; sensationalization and flashy articles that really do nothing to inform people at large about real issues (much like Congress has been wasting our time with ridiculous issues like flag-waving).

PV2 Marc T
Intelligence Analyst

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would have been an interesting article...
Posted by: ekwhite on Jul 15, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll refrain from the ad hominem attacks on the author. I will say that the author's pointless jokes about Bill O'Reilly's audience are demeaning to senior citizens. I have seen plenty of ultraconservatives in their 20's, and some real progressives in their 80's. For myself, I am still a few years short of the median age of Keith Olbermann's audience.

One point about the median versus the average. A median age of 71 means that 50% of O'Reilly's audience is above 71, and 50% of O'Reilly's audience is below 71. As another poster mentioned, I would like to see the data on the distribution of ages watching O'Reilly. It would also be interesting to see the geographic distribution of his audience. I suspect that many of his viewers are unrepentant segregationists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'R's demographic
Posted by: Alex Zeka on Jul 15, 2006 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have often wondered what sort of person could swallow the "small gov't-invade the world", "conservatism-America is a subversive idea" contradictions of O'R's missives. Now I finally have the answer: the senile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: O'R's demographic Posted by: Vietnam Vet
How come left not strong enough to take O'Reilly
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 18, 2006 3:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
O'Reilly is a ridiculous windbag who I watch like I like to watch 'Cops': it is all road wreck TV. But is it really a big threat to the left? Is the left so weak that O'Reilly is their biggest threat? Come on.

Here is an action plan that would sort the left out and massively improve its fortunes:

1) Integrity: this means do what you say, say what you do. If you are the friend of the low-paid worker, stop going to rallies in Lear Jets.

2) Be consistent: the left's advantage in the past was that it was about basic humanitarian instincts. It put the dignity of the person first, no matter what their background or income. These days the left no longer believes that. We now have ivy league lefties, some of the worst snobs going. We have creepy NGO lefties who spend their days travelling the world staying in fancy hotels talking about ending world poverty. The left has become a joke and the people can see that. The left's fortunes will recover when it stops being a joke.

3) Really support the public: so many on the left are either useful idiots, or directly complicit in the atomisation and niching of our society which is ripping the guts out of anything public. While 'the man' may want this to happen as he/she privatises everything, this should not be the behaviour of the left. Yet time and time again NGOs fail to set an example in their behaviour.

4) Don't support violence against innocent civilians, period. Don't support violent rhetoric or the architecture of hate that supports violence against innocent civilians.

5)Follow these first four points and call me in a year's time. Then maybe the left will be on the path to having influence again. A path by the way, one I support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]