According to The Live Feed:
Nielsen Media Research says 37.8 million TV viewers watched Tuesday’s coverage — the largest inaugural audience in decades.
Obama’s viewership is bigger than any presidential inauguration in 28 years. It’s 27% higher than Bill Clinton’s in 1993 and 30% larger than George Bush’s in 2001.
Ronald Reagan’s first inauguration in 1981 drew a larger tally, however, with 41.8 million
.
Hat tip Notoriously Conservative, who notes that this shouldn’t surprise too many folks, considering Barack Obama’s win was far from the landslide the media are making it out to be.
Moe Lane
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Population in 1981
Swamp_Yankee (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:05PM EST (link)was about two thirds of what it is now. I’d like to see the number by the percentage of the population. 41.8 in 1981 is ridiculous.
My 1st thought too.
phxg (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:20PM EST (link)Because in 1980, per the census there were 226,545,805 people living in the US. The Reagan audience equates to 18.4% of the population.
Whereas The One only garnered 12.1% of the (projected) 2008 US population.
And as I recall, in 1980 there were only 5 stations to deliver the broadcast, not the dozens of methods that exist today. So the Obama inauguration may not have been failblog worthy, it certainly was no grand slam.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. –Aristotle
American Idol
MMAlpha Thursday, January 22nd at 2:09PM EST (link)Rush is saying that it wasn’t even the highest rated show of the day.
Well, maybe not...
McE Thursday, January 22nd at 2:13PM EST (link)“More than 7.7 million people watched the inauguration online at the same time, according to Akamai Technologies Inc., which manages Web traffic for more than 150 news sites.”
37.8 + 7.7 = 45.5 million
Though, I agree, by percentage of population, Reagan still wins.
The problem with that
Darin_H (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:38PM EST (link)is how do we calculate how many people would have watched online in 1981? Thanks for the apples – oranges comparison though.
A visionary coward says that anger can be power, as long as there’s a victim on TV – Flat Top, Goo Goo Dolls
Gotta look at everything, don't you?
txaggies911 Thursday, January 22nd at 2:44PM EST (link)Wait…wait. How exactly is the original comparison not apples -oranges? If you ignore what is obviously a highly substantial source of viewership of the proceedings, then you’re not getting the full picture. You’re cherry picking statistics.
The best you can do is to take ALL available sources (TV, internet, live) and add them together to get total viewership.
No because you're sampling 2 groups
Darin_H (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:52PM EST (link)1 Group is people who watched on TV
1 Group is people who cannot watch TV, but then have access to other means to watch on the internet, Those means weren’t available in 1981. You’re likely pulling in people who wouldn’t have watched (people who had it on at work for example).
The internet is a different medium than television, just like radio is a different medium. In one year we didn’t have that medium, so there is no comparison to make.
Would more people have watched in 1981 had there been the same means? It’s a question no one can answer therefore the comparison is invalid.
A visionary coward says that anger can be power, as long as there’s a victim on TV – Flat Top, Goo Goo Dolls
depends what you are trying to show
lapert Thursday, January 22nd at 3:15PM EST (link)Let me preface this all by saying – who cares? The stupid diaries over how many people did or did not show up/watch TV, was it a mandate or not was it a landslide or not etc. are a waste of bandwidth and in no way help change the reality that the democrats now wield all substantial power in the federal government – it’s just semantics and is not helpful in impacting policy or future electoral results.
That said, if you want to analyze which inaguration was a more popular event you absolutely have to use all available mediums (add online+tv+radio+whatever else there is). It is ludcirous to deny that the internet has dispalced TV as a medium for viewing live events for people and if you want to measure how many people cared to catch the event live you need to use all mediums.
On the other hand, comparing TV numbers does tell you something about the evolution of mediums over the last 30 years – which is a different but probably more interesting conversation.
I didn't say that
Darin_H (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 3:56PM EST (link)It is ludcirous to deny that the internet has dispalced TV as a medium for viewing live events for people
It has, but it also allows for additional viewers for a week-day time event. I would like to know the #’s for all mediums as well.
BTW – not “who cares” but “let’s have a little fun with this”
A visionary coward says that anger can be power, as long as there’s a victim on TV – Flat Top, Goo Goo Dolls
It is an interesting question regardless, in my opinion.
Moriah (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 7:58PM EST (link)I personally abhor turning on my television. I was home, and awake, and watched online through CSPAN. (Awake is a crucial consideration, as I work nights.)
Reagan’s inauguration did take place on a Sunday, however, so it’s probable that most people who wanted to watch the Oath in 1981 were able to get to a television, in my opinion. Shift workers like me do seem to make up a minority of the population (I work nights Thursday-Sunday). The Internet is a blessing for those of us who generally aren’t awake at the times events are happening live.
It’s hard to tell how many people are like me and would rather stream even when we could watch it live, though. I streamed the debates and the conventions rather than watching them live. But I’m an odd duck.
Blessings,
Moriah
The assumption is
DRP Thursday, January 22nd at 2:49PM EST (link)People are watching it via Hulu or Youtube instead of watching it on TV, not in addition to. TV viewership in general tends to support that assertion, I think, although I’m not an expert.
Hmmmm
Darin_H (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:54PM EST (link)Do Hulu and Youtube cover live events? I didn’t think they did, but I could be mistaken. I thought the feeds were through CNN, Fox News, etc?
A visionary coward says that anger can be power, as long as there’s a victim on TV – Flat Top, Goo Goo Dolls
Not sure about Youtube
DRP Thursday, January 22nd at 3:10PM EST (link)I did watch the debates live on Hulu though, and I think they had the inauguration. The news sites were probably where a lot of people saw it though.
UStream had the inauguration, and ...
Jeff Emanuel (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 3:14PM EST (link)…only lists 3.8 million viewers of all UStream programming that day, total.
JE
Actually, I can
BlueLandRed (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 3:48PM EST (link)tell you how many people watched Reagan’s 1981 inauguration on the internet… zero. Because back in 1981 there wasn’t such thing as streaming video and you where lucky to have a 300 baud modem that worked most of the time… nevermind there weren’t all that many places to call into. Me, I had an Apple ][ with 48K and was thrilled when I could finally afford a 5 1/4″ floppy drive so I could stop trying to store stuff on audio cassettes tapes.
You missed a word or two
Darin_H (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 3:53PM EST (link)“would have”
A visionary coward says that anger can be power, as long as there’s a victim on TV – Flat Top, Goo Goo Dolls
Reagan still wins.
MetaCosm (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:41PM EST (link)I am using the NationMaster.com data for population, using the year “of the election” in both cases, and assuming the numbers so far in this thread are generally correct.
1980 = 227,225,000
2008 = 303,824,640
1980: 41,800,000 / 227,225,000 = 18.39% of the population watched.
2008: 45,500,000 / 303,824,640 = 14.97% of the population watched.
~ MetaCosm
Factor in the 35 times more coverage
jimmuy8 (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:14PM EST (link)than Bush, and that is downright sad.
I think the landslide thing
baseketball (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 2:19PM EST (link)is a result of looking at the electoral college score, which was pretty much a wipeout. Or it could just be that after the winner lost the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000 and won it by about 2.5% in 2004, a 7% win is something people actually think is a landslide.
First failure of many.
sickofitall Thursday, January 22nd at 2:27PM EST (link)Nobody here is going to be the least surprised that the Obamination failed to match the Gipper right out of the gate. The only numbers game he wins vs Reagan is number of vapid Hollywood types in DC for the event. The Gipper wins with the numbers that matter- true Americans. Funny thing is this is most likely the Obamination’s high water mark too, whereas for Reagan is was just a start. As soon as he’s actually got to start governing it’s going to go right down the toilet. I can’t help but laugh that after 2 tries he can’t get the Oath right either and still hasn’t been legitimately sworn in. I can only hope that it’s payback from Justice Roberts for the No vote.
“You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany.” – Rep. Paul Broun
The gap is even wider because
oleslow Thursday, January 22nd at 3:18PM EST (link)“This is the first inaugural since Nielsen began tracking time-shifted viewing, and this year’s data is based on Live + Same Day, meaning incremental viewing during the same broadcast day is included.” – Nielsen Wire
We didn’t have that option in 1981, so more people would have probably seen it who were unable to watch it live.
Numbers
noainc Thursday, January 22nd at 3:52PM EST (link)Hussein Obama Coronation 37.8 million TV viewers
Palin/Biden Debate 69.9 million TV viewers
And I bet they weren't there to watch Biden,
larueladue (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 4:19PM EST (link)except in the manner of watching a train wreck…
Close...but with lots of other stuff on
ajl_mo (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 9:32PM EST (link)In 1981 most folks had only the three networks, plus maybe a PBS station and perhaps an independent channel or two (in St Louis anyway) Heck I’ve got friends who lived in rural MO that only had one clear channel and maybe two fuzzy ones.
So if you had a TV on during Reagan’s inauguration, 50% of the channels had it on (66% if PBS carried it). Now, with cable and sat TV the coverage of the Obama inauguration was about 14% of the channels (the old networks + Fox +3 or 4 news channels + PBS + CSPAN/70 or so total channels). It’s even a lower percentage if you’ve got more than expanded basic channels.
Truth is 28 years ago there just wasn’t much else on.
I pay for porn.
Nah nah nah nah nah nah!
Praying (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 9:48PM EST (link)All the hoopla and media coverage and fawning – and Reagan still drew more viewers! Even in this age of instant, digital information! Somehow that makes me very happy.
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
[Check out the RS Store! - ML]
Retread of realamericanhero moby. Thursday, January 22nd at 9:52PM EST (link)http://www.cafepress.com/redstate
Reagan actually knew what he was talking about
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, January 22nd at 10:18PM EST (link)Obama is just words – just speeches. No substance.
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.