Obama's inauguration most-watched since Reagan's

UPDATED: Here's another way Barack Obama's inauguration made history.

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.

Obama's total includes telecasts on 17 broadcast and cable networks and measures the number of viewers who watched from 10 a.m.-5 p.m. The swearing-in ceremony itself spiked viewership considerably just after noon. The ratings do not factor in online viewing, which was significant (viewers watching the inauguration broke streaming video traffic records for CNN.com, FoxNews.com and MSNBC.com).

Among broadcasters, NBC News topped competitors. From 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m., at the height of the ceremony and including Obama's inaugural address, NBC led with 11.5 million, followed by ABC (11 million) and CBS (7.2 million). From 10 a.m.-5 p.m., NBC averaged 8.7 million, followed by ABC (8.4 million) and CBS (5.5 million).

CNN broke into the broadcast ranks, beating CBS and topping cable. CNN averaged 8.5 million viewers between noon and 12:30 p.m. That compares with 5.5 million for Fox News Channel, and 3.1 million for MSNBC. 

The Raleigh-Durham market had the largest TV audience with more than 51% of households tuned in; Seattle-Tacoma had the lowest with 18.8%. Market-by-market info here.

Overseas, Barack Obama's inauguration was must-see TV for Europeans. Some 11 million Germans watched coverage on one of the half-dozen channels carrying the inauguration live. Things were similar in France, where half the evening's TV audience -- more than 7 million people -- was glued to the screen. In Britain, the BBC said 5.1 million viewers tuned in for the inauguration while 6.5 million watched the highlights on the BBC's 6 p.m. evening news.

Also: HBO got back some early numbers for its "We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial" concert. The premium cable network ran the special three times Sunday night and garnered a healthy 4.1 million viewers among its subscribers, with another 700,000 views on HBO.com. The network is still waiting for a total number that includes non-HBO subscribers (cable operators opened the network up to nonsubs for the event). Also, Disney Channel is touting 3.4 million viewers for Monday's "Kids' Inaugural: We Are the Future" concert.

Presidential Inauguration Ratings:

2005 – George W. Bush – 11.8 HH / 15.5 million
2001 – George W. Bush – 20.8 HH / 29.0 million
1997 – Bill Clinton – 17.1 HH / 21.6 million
1993 – Bill Clinton – 24.5 HH / 29.7 million
1989 – George Bush – 18.1 HH / 23.3 million
1985 – Ronald Reagan – 22.3 HH / 25.1 million
1981 – Ronald Reagan – 37.4 HH / 41.8 million
1977 – Jimmy Carter – 31.5 HH / 34.1 million
1973 – Richard Nixon – 28.5 HH / 33.0 million

Washington Post: If you add it all together, more watched Obama than Reagan

Related: "American Idol" impacted by last night's inauguration coverage.

-- Paul J. Gough, Rebecca Leffler, Mimi Turner and Scott Roxborough contributed to this report

Comments

[Pam]

But..........there wasn't nothing else to watch?

[Eli M]

Pam you are so right, my kids turned the tv’s off early in the day because that was all they saw in the Cartoon Network and Disney Channel. They said a day without tv isn’t going to kill them. LOL.

[adsf@adfdsf.com]

I hear the rating were really high in Cuba...

[Wrecktum]

Only 20% in Seattle? What were they watching instead???

[Brice Gilbert]

The cities with the highest internet access and population of people more likely to use internet options were at the bottom of TV viewers. Makes sense to me.

53 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 20 21.2
54 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 6 20.2
55 Portland, OR 22 20.2
56 Seattle-Tacoma

[Wrecktum]

...They were also all west coast markets, where the swearing in ceremony started at 9am. This Nielsen # is for the actual ceremony, right?

[Ted Parker]

'Idol' trumps Obama coverage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ted]

This was the greatest propaganda demonstration since Stalin. Pam, said it best, It was the only game in America.

[james]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. He is sworn in. Deal with it. That's Mr. President to you.

[Todd]

Why would watch on the internet when you can turn on tv and watch Keith Oberman rolling his eye, make funny comments that are only funny to him, taking pot shots at Bush and allow Idiots like Maddow and Brokaw Make fun of middle America yet one more time..

[Brenda Craven]

Reagan by far had more viewers. If you look at it Reagan only had ABC, CBS, & NBC to cover his Presidency. Obama had like 15 or more stations including internet and still came up behind the great President Reagan. But like Franken they'll keep digging until they can figure out someway to make the numbers magically appear.

[Comm21]

Right on TED -- and the MSM are now saying it was bigger than the Super Bowl. Turk in Indiana

[Tyrell]

So much fuss over a half-negro.

[Keone]

TYRELL: We found one of the 20% of the dumb a** that still think DUSH was a good PREZ. The half-negro is now the PREZ of the U.S. , buddy get your head out of your white a**!

[Steveo]

Holy cow! Talk about spin.

The real story is this: Despite all the media predictions about this most watched inaugural event ever, Reagan's inauguration had a much higher Neilsen score.

This article can't state that simple fact. The author makes painful efforts to try to make his candidate look bigger and better. "The biggest in 28 years!" "And maybe, since America's population is bigger now..."

I criticize not Obama or his followers, but a press corps that is so in the tank for their own candidate that they can't even report simple facts -- or refrain from reporting when there isn't really a story.

[Roger on Beacon Hill]

In Seattle and I expect many other markets, people left home (with their TV off) and went to cafes, schools, community centers, and one of thousands of venues which were showing the inauguration live. This was an occasion to be with other people, not holed up alone at home.

I suspect the real number of actual people viewing the event live is much higher and probably uncalculable. Bottom line is don't just count what people were watching at home at that hour.

[patty]

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why cnn beat Fox. most FNC viewers chose to do something else. I watched Fox but only because I wanted to know the truth. Too bad we live in a world that is all illusion. Thankful for Fox. Let me tell you,the USA better stay informed because we are in for the Scam of the Century.

[Pam]

I too ONLY Watch Fox for News.
I can't stand the Taste of "Koolaid" and the only time I had a "Tingle Up my Leg",was from a Spider crawling up it.
A few of the News Reporters on the other Cable Networks are Reject Contestants from SNY Tryouts.

[Jackass Observer]

LOL. Looky at all of the partisans engaging in a d*ck measuring contest over the TV ratings of....< drum roll >...inaugurations.

At his inaugural, Truman had the highest approval rating of any modern Prez, incl. Obama. But no one remembers anything said from his inauguration. Because by the time his term was up his approval ratings sank to Nixon-like levels. Awful.

No one remembers how good the appetizer is if the rest of the meal is horrific.

[Steveo]

I don't know about that. Most people do not watch inaugurations -- the majority never have. A lot of us work during the swearing in, and when you come down to it, it's a formality. The real "cliff hanger" is election night.

Obama benefitted from an African-American and college-aged audience that had a greater interest in this election. My guess is that record numbers of those groups watched.

As for older folks who have lived through 10 or more inaugurations -- yesterday was a ceremony. We're more interested in seeing what happens during the next 4 years.

[Steveo]

Nah. Both networks had record numbers. On most nights, CNN pulls about a million viewers, and Fox pulls about 1.8 million.

CNN benefited from tons of Obama supporters who normally don't watch Cable News and who, rightfully or wrongfully, view Fox as anti-Obama, and wanted to watch on an Obama-friendly network.

[Dave.]

Even Jimmy Carter's Nielsen rating was higher than B.Hussien's...

[Steveo]

I'm not really a partisan in this election. I wasn't strongly for either candidate. And, truth be told, going into it I was feeling more sorry for whoever won.

My main rant isn't about Obama, but rather about the press. After this election, I really don't feel like they have an ounce of credibility left. Predicting crowds of 5 million, when only about a million show?

They're basically making things up. When the press simply gives up on objectivity, democracy is in danger.

[Marie Collins]

Reagan's was so high because everyone knew him from Texaco theater.

[Mia]

Are you kidding me, rightfully or wrongfully view Fox as anti-Obama? Did you watch the coverage from Fox of Obama? I agree MSNBC was in the tank for him but Fox tried as hard as they could to bring him down, especially Sean Hannity.

[whitney montrose]

Winthrop Projects films and aerial maps for 20 yrs. We first

had l.4 million,recheck was l.l million, second check to make sure

800,000 to 900,000 next time we have to do better democrats.

[Mia]

I do think journalist have dropped the ball but it started long before Barack Obama became a candidate and eventually the POTUS. They are trying to fill up 24 hours of news with the same news hour after hour of silly sometimes salicious foolishness. There is a big world out there and covering stupid stuff like Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton to what HRC is wearing and if she was sincere when she cried to going on and on about "lipstick on a pig." They need to get out of the soundbite business and do some true investigative reporting from the budget to war crimes here in America and abroad.

[Steveo]

Sean Hannity is a zillion percent Anti-Obama, to the point of being insane. Shepherd Smith is very fair. While Huckabee is a Republican, he treats people civilly and with respect. O'Reilly is conservative on most issues, but treated Obama and McCain equally fair during the election -- he basically criticized one as much as the other.

[Steveo]

I agree. Everybody uses the argument that "they have to fill up 24 hours a day, so they get stupid!"

30 years ago (yes, I'm old enough to remember), the mantra was "we can't cover the news thoroughly! We only have 30 minutes a day, minus 8 minutes for commercials. How can you do "serious reporting" when you only have 3 minutes to devote to your lead story.

So...now they have time. But where is the serious reporting?

News coverage is stupid NOT because they have 24 hours to fill. Maybe it's stupid because the reporters they hire aren't smart enough to seek out and report on interesting, compelling stories that matter.

[scottyp]

Sorry I missed it i was watching the jefferson's. Love that George he is so funny. Wish he was the first African American President. He took a small amount of money and turned it into 10 Drycleaning stores w/out any Government help. A true entrepreneur. Unlike B Hussain(can I use that now) who was given everthing.

[Steveo]

Seriously, dude. Lighten up. People are tired of all the mindless ranters, both on the left and right.

I have specific political beliefs and values, and I'm going to be watching the new administration very carefully to make sure they don't tread on them. But, in the process of doing so, I'm not going to sound like a third-grade jerk.

It's possible. You should grow up and give it a try.

[Kristoffer]

I have to agree that the inauguration is just a formality. We all new that Obama would be the President on Jan. 20 2009. I did not vote for the guy but he is our president. I disagree with his beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that. It is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I do agree that the news has lost all credibility. As for people thinking that Hannity reports news, you are mistaken. He is a political commenter. Pure and simple. He is paid to give his opinion not be objective. If you don't like him don't watch. If enough people don't watch he gets canned, the networks are there to make money, and Hannity brings in viewers. I also agree that Shepard Smith is very objective.

[Kristoffer]

I concur with steveo. Politicians make lots of promises then break them. bush looked promising but the end result was very disappointing. Watch Obama. see what happens.

[scottyp]

Your telling me to lighten up. It was a joke or did it hit too close to home with your boy B Hissain(we are allowed to use his middle name now aren't we).
Sorry you have no sense of humor.
Anyway I didn't reply to you and I have certain political beliefs like Small Government and Low Taxes looks as if I am not getting anything I want for Christmas. But you know what I am going to do , what I always do work my ass off so I can be one of the people making more than $250,000 or is it 200,000 or is it 140,000(alreadt there) or is it 42,000(what he voted for 3 times way passed it). so I can pay more taxes.
Oh yeah pick up your trash you left at the mall Steveo(loser)

[boliv]

The 5 million number was purposely used to dissuade more people from coming. I live in DC and I think the city handled the crowds well but could not have handled anymore.

But I agree with what you said, no cable news channel is unbiased because they all want an audience. That is how they make money, by showing their ratings to advertisers. And rather than having a bunch of neutral and objective channels, they have decided to each go after a different market, whether liberal, conservative, angry, happy, urban, rural instead of competing for the same audience.

Some years you might like CBS more than NBC because it has better TV shows, but you are more likely to stick with the same cable news channel that shares your views. Unfortunate that is has come down to this, but it will never change.

[jim in PA]

obama's inauguration ratings not even close to Reagan's

obama was at 29.2% and Reagan was at 37.4

wow, only 29.2 % when there is nothing else on to watch and he was the second coming?

Of course it is being spun as "obama's ratings highest for an inauguration in decades..."

oh, and we sure don't want to mention that he had lower ratings then Carter at 31.5% and especially that he just edged out Nixon at 28.5%

[brueso]

if you incorporate how many people watched it on the web or in theaters (here in Seattle, several played it for free), I'm sure it would bury the Reagan numbers.

[Josh]

Fox News is a conservative republican propaganda machine. They are racist, homophobic, anti-poor, anti-latino, and anti-arab and anti-muslim.

Check out websites like News Hounds, Media Matters, and Fox Attacks to see how many lies and distortions that are made on Fox News.

[Kim]

I guess this doesn't take in account the mass number of people who gather together to see the Inauguration on ONE TV.

[sam]

To Keone..

You didnt like the "half Negro comment," OK, how about "much ado about a half honky" then!