Media Matters will not call out Disney, Warner Bro/Discovery, etc, they do the same thing as local TV stations also do CMG & Dish went dark on Mon Media Matters doesn't care about that. Media Matters just wants to pick on Fox and get their name out is all will anyone call DirecTV that they don't want Fox I highly doubt it only a few but not much of an epic fail by the lyin Media Matters. I knew Fox would have no comment on Media Matters just like Media Matters has no comment when they get called out on their lies since nothing that Media Matters says is lies no truth in their reporting ever.

A lot of Sinclair programs that they create will only be on their own TV stations CW7 is where they would go in West Michigan where The National Desk is aired for 3 hours 6AM to 9AM & 10:30PM to 12AM M-F. That is where game shows, talkers, etc would go. I think that Wood TV would put on a 10PM newscast if NBC gives back the 10PM hour in my opinion. 

Yes 'linchpin' is the preferred spelling ... in many countries, but it is not ubiquitous.   'Lynchpin' has been doing OK since the 1300s and is still used in many countries (including AU).

@Dan Ciccone: Silencing our subscribers? That's hilarious coming from this source:

 https://www.mediapost.com/people/DanCiccone/comments/

With very few exceptions, we let all our readers' comments stand. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Disagreeing with you does not equal silencing.

Sheesh!

Jack, I agree that this is a somewhat confusing release that needs clarification, however, I assume that Nielsen is referring to nationally aired content, hence it's the CBS TV network's total program lineup that is being tallied. I also suspect that Nielsen has a way of identifying content as to who initiated ---or first licensed and used it. I hope that someone from Nielsen will chime in as this question is sure to come up on other forums.

@Joe - what am I missing here?  It's called a "TV News Risk Rating."  As I stated, there is a big difference between a news broadcast and a pundit's broadcast on a news network.  I don't see Tucker Carlson's spin on events any different than Scarborough's spin on events - they are opinion programs - not news reporting.  So putting CBS Evening News against Tucker Carlson, Hannity, Scarborough, or Don Lemon's nightly rants doesn't make any sense when you speak of "risk."  All of those individuals, and plenty others, are highly flawed and divisive and should not be considered as news anchors - they are partisan pundits and any "risk" should be relatively equal as they all have presented plenty of misninformation and flat out hateful speech.

You've been very vocal about your support for Newsguard, but I'm not the only one who finds the methodology and approach odd and I don't think it's appropriate to silence your subscribers who have an opposing viewpoint or ask questions...after all, if we are all just seeking the truth, what's the harm in the debate?

CBS content only for time the network airs content or is it an affiliate number?  Netflix is 24/7. CBS not. These types of studies are hard to understand without backup detail. 

I don't know that Nielsen categorizes any online/streaming content as original or not. Would be news to me!

Jack, the wording seems to say that it's all content by the  broadcast networks but only originated content for the streamers. Which is why I commented. For example, Netflix has about a 7-7.5% share of all U.S.TV viewing while the leading broadcast TV network---CBS----is way below that at about 4-4.5% and all three major broadcst TV networks combine for about a 10-12% share. . Therefore it is unlikely that CBS and Netflix could be in a virtual tie in total minutes of viewing recently---unless Nielsen is not counting all of Netflix's cntent in this report.

As for what it represents, I'm reasonably confident that it's persons minutes based on the national people meter panels, which asume that those who claim to be viewing when a given channel is selected watch every minute of its content so long as the set remains tuned to the show and the "viewer" does not indicate a cessation of "viewing"---which notice is almost never given even though people frequently leave the room while "watching". . 

I don't see how time for streamers or linear (in minutes or hours) is for original programming only. I don't see how CBS would even obtain that info for streaming sources. I just think it's total minutes. Am also curious as to whether these are "persons minutes" where each viewer is counted even if they are watching together or "device minutes".

Wayne, what Sinclair is thinking abouit is exactly what the Westinghouse stations did way back in the early- and mid-1960s when  "early show" movies overstayed their welcome due to over exposure plus the advent of top Hollywood film productions on the networks' prime time lineups. Group W produced "The Mike Douglas Show" a gabfest, for its own stations, then syndicated it successfully to many others---mainly major network affiliates--- for the early evening hours. Later Group W followed with "The Merv Griffen Show", intending it to be a parallel late night entry---but soon found tht it worked much better as an early evening talker.

This is certainly one option for Sinclair, providing that at least two and perhaps all three of the broadcast networks abandons the 10-11PM time slot. If only NBC goes that route, the prospects for a nationlly syndicated show by Sinclair---or anyone else---become more problematic as you cant count on every NBC affiliate---or even a majority of them ---buying the show as many may simply fill the void with news---which appeals to high ticket local advertisers who are willing to pay top CPMs for its "environment"---but not so for talkers. Game shows and entertainment focused newsmags are other possibilities---but, again, only if there are lots of potential station buyers in each market, often counterprogrmming eachother---not just a single NBC affiliate.

As for younger viewers, forget about it. The chances of luring significant numbers of teens and 18-40s to any show on a major network affiliate at 10PM are, to put it mildly, very slim.

Linchpin is the preferred spelling. 

@Steve Lundin: I don't disagree.

@Jim Meyer: I do like and admire Elon Musk, just not as an arbiter of free speech or his tolerance for racists and anti-Semites. I like what he has done with PayPal, Tesla, SpaceX, etc. I'm not sure about what he's doing with Neuralink. And so far, I'm not a fan of what he's been doing with Twitter.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Joe. I appreciated it. I was responding to this section of your article, which conflates the two meanings of "free" to snarky effect: "Other ironies abound, but perhaps the biggest of them all is that Musk keeps asserting that Twitter is trying to save free speech, even as he has been trying to charge users $8 a month in order to speak it, and definitely to generate any reach from it." It's clear you don't like Elon Musk, and that's fair. But you have better arguments than that. Have a good weekend! 

Ken - thanks for giving my words a home!

@Dan Ciccone: Your inference, nothing like that implied. (Did you actually read through the nutrition labels? They're pretty detailed and self-explanatory.)

Also, why do you see everything as being a partisan agenda? Why can't it just be about veracity and truth?

And fact-check: MP is not a "fact checker," though we check our own before reporting them.

Why does ANYONE get to "stamp out" anything in the media?  Misinformation or not, should be decided by the entire population of any democratic republic, not the bureaucratic elite that is profit motivated.

Again it is the censorship that is obiously wrong.  We know the CDC and WHO spent millions on Wuhan lab to carry out "gain of function" experiments on coronaviruses from bats.  We know the covid-19 virus first outbreak was in Wuhan and it is a bat coronavirus.  The odds of that being coincidental are astronomical.  Why then is anyone letting this obvious connection be censored?  We need to decide as a country, if "gain of function" research is necessary or too risky?  That should not be up to the private, for profit, medical industry to decide.

What an idiotic title to see in my in box on a Friday morning - or any morning for that matter. 

The "misinformation" is coming from Moderna and Pfizer, not Twitter or social media.  If Moderna and Pfizer were being truthful, then they would not need to censor social media.  Everyone knows how vaccines work.  They contain dead pathogens so the immune system can remember than for next time.  But the mRNA injections do not contain any pathogens, just instructions to get our own cells to grow proteins.  And the immune system can not remember and trigger on spike proteins because our own exosomes use them.  That is how coronaviruses sneak into our cells, by mimicking our own exosomes, with the same protein spike.  So without any doubt at all, mRNA vaccines can easily be shown to be complete fakes.  They only seem to work temporarily because the immune system detects all those extra spike proteins as dead cell debris that it needs to clean up with some extra antibodies.  That is not an immune response.  There is no immune response from mRNA injections.

Apologies in advance for being contrary, but after reading the research report, one would conclude that a more accurate headline for your article would have been: "Ecommerce plays a small but growing role for new snack searches". Or alternatively, "Brick & Mortar still dominates snack purchasing".   (As one would expect for an instant gratification category.)

As usual, the reporting and the methodology conflates "news" with "opinion."

CBS Evening News is a completely different format than Meet the Press and certainly totally different than Morning Joe and Tucker Carlson.  Why MP and other outlets continue to position news programming and pundetry in the same bucket is head scratching.

Also noteworthy that MP, Newsguard, and other "fact checkers" conveniently ignore how many networks got the laptop story, Russian collusion, and Rittenhouse story wrong...the "fact checking" seems to lean in only one political direction which contributes to Americans' distrust of the media.

Stewart, we are in total agreement. I do think that fragmentation in adtech is a big part of the problem, that we need stronger standards and real enforcement, and that marketers have been on the losing end of adtech, and that commoditizing adtech in massive clloud services could be very good for marketers.