We all use math every day: to forecast weather, to tell time...but the Outfoxed gals use numbers in a totally different way.

We take pride in exposing the slanders and lies of all Fox News haters. But we keep coming back to the gold standard of hypocrisy and falsehood: the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal).

The newspoodles and their shills make it a point to dismiss FNC viewership numbers as irrelevant and meaningless. So it was yet another odd flip-flop when the curs decided to claim that Fox News Channel is ratings-challenged. Needless to say, it would hardly be a hound report if it didn't include at least one out and out falsehood:

Here's something you won't hear on Fox News -- ratings for the cable news channel have been plummeting since before the November election.

Really? How then does one explain that the November election gave Fox its "highest primetime rating ever"?
And it wasn't just election night. November 2004 turned out to be FNC's "highest rated period since the war in Iraq".
The newspooches claim ratings "have been plummeting since before the November election"? A pretty neat trick. But facts have never been the strong suit of Fox haters.

TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.

Yes, if we count using doggie math, FNC will soon have "plummeted" so far it will owe viewers to the almighty CNN (the source for this unbiased "analysis"). And yet Fox News continues to dominate the other news channels by huge margins. How can this be?

Other cable stations' ratings were also down since the election...

No kidding. And "other cable stations' ratings" also go down as summer approaches. Duh. If that's the case, why didn't the media mastiffs resolve these issues in the most obvious, incontrovertible way possible? Simply compare this April's ratings with last April. That gets the election completely out of the picture, and cancels out any seasonal viewership changes. Then we'd know for sure if ratings at Fox are in a "free fall". For some reason, the hounds don't want you to know those figures. They won't tell you. We will:

April 2004: FOX averaged 1,497,000 viewers in Prime Time, whereas CNN and MSNBC combined to average only 1,156,000 viewers. MSNBC lost nearly three-quarters of its April 2003 Prime Time audience and CNN plummeted 63% in Prime Time viewership.
In the 24-Hour Time period, FOX averaged 884,000 viewers vs. the 713,000 viewers CNN and MSNBC drew collectively

April 2005: FNC averaged 1,511,000 primetime viewers, compared to CNN's 893,000 and MSNBC's 343,000. FNC's primetime ratings are up 1% from the year-ago, while CNN is up 6% and MSNBC is up 8%.
In total day, FNC averaged 825,000 viewers, compared to CNN's 531,000 and MSNBC's 249,000

And how are things going currently?

Monday Ratings (5/16):
Total day:
Total viewers: FNC: 825,000 / CNN: 344,000 / MSNBC: 175,000 / HLN: 173,000 / CNBC: 158,000
25-54 demo: FNC: 289,000 / CNN: 111,000 / HLN: 82,000 / MSNBC: 64,000 / CNBC: 60,000
Primetime:
Total viewers: FNC: 1,588,000 / CNN: 581,000 / CNBC: 314,000 / MSNBC: 288,000 / HLN: 261,000
25-54 demo: FNC: 410,000 / CNBC: 179,000 / CNN: 161,000 / MSNBC: 108,000 / HLN: 92,000

Yes, FNC is "plummeting"--with more primetime viewers than all the other cable news channels combined. And CNN has "stabilized"...in a far-distant second place. Looks like it's time for the newspups to go back to "ratings don't matter".