Reading a variety of garbage that doesn't share their sources or even provide a ledger for what their data means isn't going to give you good conclusions. Including any of those outlets is a mistake.
Everything is relative. In my social circles virtually no one watches broadcast or cable TV any more. The ad industry relies on Neilsen ratings to say everything is wonderful in the world of passive consumption, but do you trust their stats?
http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ineffective-nielsen-ratin...
Your dismissive idea about not bothering to 'read a variety of garbage' implies you will only read rubber stamped, verified information. The question there, as we all seek versions of the truth, is who is doing the verifying and what is their agenda...
This is why the internet is such a wonderful thing, don't be fenced in by pre chewed and spun information...
If you don't trust Nielsen ratings, why are you reading things that only show you a sliver of that data and use it to make attacks?
Reading multiple sources doesn't matter if they're all trash, you'll read multiple biased accounts and then agree with the one conforming to your own bias. I don't read "rubber stamped information," I read things that can source their data and check the sources to make sure they aren't lying to me.
Your link's only source is another article that links to themselves multiple times before providing any source, a bad sign, then the source is provided without context. It basically says "lower on this list is worse therefore CNN sucks."
lol fake news much? You got that from Sean Hannity's tweets. Cable news are reporting huge viewership
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cable-news-ratings-cnn-fox-n...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sean-hannity-mocks-reruns-...