She’s losing ‘less’ viewers because she didn’t have that many to begin with. With cable news and the Internet providing up to the minute info 24/7, WHY the hell would anybody watch evening news anyway – to keep them company while they read the cue cards?

...which is what, Bob?

Karen, thanks for clarification.
I should "have" noticed that myself, however you did get Bob's attention!

Karen: If you want the nitty gritty of the story, click on the link. This is a blog, and we want you to follow the link.

But believe me: Williams' NBC bosses are more worried about him losing over half a million viewers than Couric's CBS bosses are worried about her losing 287,000. But you got "betes noires" into a post. Nice!

Bob, those absolute numbers don't mean much if you're not going to tell us what percentage of viewers each anchor lost. If Williams lost 533,000 of 30 million viewers, and Couric lost 287,000 of 10 million viewers, then she's still doing worse than he is.

Which is why they say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

And that "less viewers" hit my ears like nails on blackboard, too. The less/fewer issue is one of my personal betes noires. Oh, and Chester: you said "should not of been there" instead of "should not have been there," which is what Jim is referring to. An all too common recent consequence of the contraction "should've"....

With this kind of commentary, TV squad will have less viewers.

Jam, what is wrong with having respect for our language?

what the hell is wrong with you people?

Thanks for the clarification, Chester.

Jim, I am confused with your #6 post.

My #5 post was a correction to my #4 post.
I was saying that "Sorry Porchland & Jim, but you have that backwards." should not of been there.

I don't know where I said " should of" as you state in your #6 post.