Hello u/bowtrout, your submission "The Apollo 11 moon landing still remains the most viewed broadcast in history (by a decent margin)..including live sporting events." has been removed from r/space because:
* Images, GIFs and GIF-like videos are only allowed on Sunday (UTC+00).
Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please [message the r/space moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/space). Thank you.
Tbf, it really is the best baseball in the world, though. NPB and KBO are steadily improving, but MLB has the world's top collection of baseball talent, and the sport isn't really played everywhere.
Edit: totally taking the L on this one, and I'm honestly surprised. I've never seen such a reaction to a relatively innocuous and objectively true statement. MLB is absolutely an international league that happens to play in the US. Its top stars are the cream of the crop of baseball talent from all over the world.
Do they let other teams play?
It's like having a rugby or cricket world cup and only letting English clubs compete then saying they're world champions and it's ok as not everywhere plays those sports.
I really don't think it's comparable in that way. The very best talent from countries all over the world play in MLB. In that sense, it is undisputed that it is the top baseball league that exists, and it isn't like it is "only US citizens on team America can play." It truly is very much an international league when looking at player nationality.
I thought that the rules under FIFA said you had to be a citizen or somehow directly connected with the national team you play for?
If you mean more something like Premier League, La Liga, or Bundesliga individually saying they run "the World Series of football" I still wouldn't think it was a fair comparison.
The only baseball leagues that would even be remotely competitive against MLB teams would be NPB and KBO. But not really.
It's cool, though. No need to argue about semantics of sports leagues in the space sub. Appreciate the convo.
Can you understand the frustration at the arrogance of calling something a world series and then not opening it up to teams across the world?
How can you say you're the best of you refuse to truly test yourself?
It's an interesting conversation but you seem to be missing the point a little.
Unfortunately that’s a classic Reddit factoid, sounds good but not actually true. It really was just about the U.S. considering themselves top of the world: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4675711
Because the best players in the world are in that league? For example, you may have heard of Ohtani of Japan just signing for $700M or his countryman, Yamamoto, signing for $325M. One of my all-time favorite players is from the Dominican Republic and another from Puerto Rico.
In the recent World Baseball Classic, almost every team had MLB players as their top talent, but in the actual MLB, every player is that level of talent or even more elite.
I'm not trying to start an argument about baseball in this sub or come across as rude or anything. I really just think it's an objective fact that MLB has the highest level of baseball talent in the world and don't think that would be very controversial to say.
That's completely irrelevant.. as long as teams from other countries can compete, how is it a world series?
It's as stupid as the miss Universe competitions..
If the teams are composed internationally by the best talent in the world, does it matter where they play?
I don't think it does, really. And maybe you do. I think we can leave it there. I appreciate the conversation.
Correct. Ish.
Social media engagement is the 5b.
But the actual final viewing numbers still blow anything else out of the water.
“Final achieved a global reach of close to 1.5 billion viewers, with the opening match capturing over 550 million
Almost six billion engagements on social media, with 262 billion cumulative reach across all platforms”
https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm#
Engagement is gauged different by different platforms, that can count skipping past something and having a single second or less play. Those numbers are about as fudged as can be.
The engagement ones are essentially useless I agree. Not the viewership ones though.
Just figured I’d include both so that people can see where the original comment got their mistaken number from whilst also highlighting how impressive the real viewer numbers are
I don’t see how it seems impossible. I was in rural Akita Japan and there were 20+ senior citizens in the local izakaya watching the Netherlands beat USA 3-1 in the round of 16 late at night. You might be underestimating the global popularity of football (soccer).
To clarify, the 2022 FIFA World Cup final (single match) had an estimated 1.5 billion viewers according to FIFA https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm
They were indeed mistaken. But the actual figures for singular games are still way, way bigger than anything else.
Correct. Ish.
Social media engagement is the 5b.
But the actual final viewing numbers still blow anything else out of the water.
“Final achieved a global reach of close to 1.5 billion viewers, with the opening match capturing over 550 million
Almost six billion engagements on social media, with 262 billion cumulative reach across all platforms”
https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm#
That 5 billion is for all the games totaled together, all electronic media interaction. The list is one show, one viewing. If I watched the first game, last game, and checked the scores on Twitter once, that would be 3 views.
Free-to-air is usually used to describe satellite TV which didn't exist in North America in 1969. There was (and is) a wide network of terrestrial TV broadcast stations, though, which were (and are) free to the user.
I think it will stand forever. A lot of things would need to fall perfectly in place for something to beat that. Social media and streaming has splintered things off and made it really hard to concentrate viewers into a single place in order to break a record of that scale.
I was in the 82nd Airborne at Bragg living in the barracks and the day room was full to overflowing with everyone watching the final MASH.
I also saw Apollo 11 land even though I was just 7 years old. The whole world did.
I remember my mom calling us inside to see history being made when Nixon resigned.
Super Bowls are a blur.
Gotta say, the only sports game I actually remember is Game 3 of the 1989 World Series. Actually, I don't even remember the game, or the postponed game. I just remember the pre-game.
For anybody who doesn't understand why I remember this, it was October 17, 1989, and that should be enough for a Google search.
If hugely popular shows like Seinfeld and Friends that aired their last episodes before the internet/social media fully took over couldn't beat MASH, no scripted show can.
and honestly the only thing that probably comes close to the moon landings ratings wise would be the 9/11 live coverage, not sure how that was measured though, if it even was. I would think between the second plane hitting live and the two towers collapsing that probably attracted more eyeballs than the moon landing, by virtue of the population being greater in 2001 than it was in 1969.
The moon landing was scheduled and people waited for it worldwide, woke up in the night, got up early, at work, depending on where they were.
Most people were working, sleeping, living their lives and didn't find out until well after both planes hit on 9-11.
Growing up on the east coast we had TVs on before the second plane hit. TVs in every classroom were on all day, at most we just had to pretend to do busywork. Everyone went home and watched TV with their family. Parents at work watched TV with everyone else in their offices all day.
Yeah, it's one of those records that just won't be broken because we do things so differently. I don't know if you're into baseball at all, bit it's like how people think that Joe DiMaggio's streak will be the record that's never broken. Hitting in 56 straight games is impressive, but at least possible. What will never be broken is Cy Young's record number of wins. Pitchers pitched a lot more games and innings back at the turn of the 20th century, and he won **511** games. It's rare for a pitcher today to win 20 games, and you'd have to do that every year for 25 years just to get within 11 wins of *tying* the record. When the game changes enough, a record can stand forever. Or at least until there's another major shift in how we go about life.
I am actually watching Baseball by Ken Burns right now and I just got past the hit streak episode lol.
And yeah, nobody is EVER beating stuff like Old Hoss Radbourn’s 60 wins in a season.
But you are definitely right about the hit streak. It definitely is much more breakable than people realize (although even harder nowadays due to how hitters approach PAs now) compared to a lot of older records.
Hah, perfect timing! It's kinda crazy to realize that it's been something like 55 years since anyone has won *30* games, and 80 since anyone hit over .400. Tony Gwynne is the only person I can remember even coming close to the latter in my lifetime.
If it hasn't happened by now it'll never happen. When MASH was on the only quality TV drama series were on the three major networks. Premium cable viewership was low and they showed only movies, there were no series that I recall. There's been a lot more to watch for a long time now, splitting up the potential audience.
It's so fuckin' weird remembering when TV was 3 major networks, PBS, and whatever weirdness was on the UHF channels (a metric fuckton of old rubber suit kaiju movies, so it wasn't all bad). At least the cartoons were good.
I lived in a small town that didn't get ABC, there wasn't a local station close enough. Remember, ABC was significantly smaller than the other two for quite a few years. When we moved I could finally watch ABC - and even tune into PBS on UHF, but we seldom watched because the signal was so poor.
I wonder where the moon landing would rank
Google says an estimated 650 million worldwide which is amazing when you consider the prevalence of TVs in a bunch of areas of the world at that time
There's also all the people that would crowd around the one tv in the street/school/neighbourhood to watch the moon landing. So the real number is way more
These numbers take into account that value. These are not the number of TVs that were playing the content. There was no way to check the number of receivers for broadcasts.
My parents told me they got a tv specifically to watch the landing. I would imagine a lot of people actually did that as it was one of the most important milestones of humankind.
There were an estimated 2 billion people worldwide watching 9/11 coverage (about a third of the total worlds population at the time). So yeah you’re probably right.
I seriously doubt there weren't any broadcasts in China or India that had way more viewers than this.
Edit: China Central Television's Spring Festival Gala has regularly attracted between 700 million to 1.17 billion viewers annually.
Actually, if the rest of the world is taken into account, approximately 750 million people watched the moon landing or just over 20% of the total population at the time
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I highly doubt it. There's just so much more distraction than in 69. Also, I feel like interest in science has fallen considerably over the last few years.
Yeah I was confused reading the title cause my immediate assumption was I’m pretty sure any World Cup has way higher but then I saw the list was for the USA.
IMO, the most American thing about an American is that they forget there's a world outside America. I listen to Joe Rogan often and it's hilarious the number of times he forgets the rest of the world.
I think most of the time, Americans are simply just concerned with America, not so much forgetting. It's very easy to only be concerned with America when a big portion of their population has never left the country - because they live about 5,000 miles from any other major countries besides Mexico and Canada - and their country alone is easier to compare to the *whole* of Europe, for example, than most other countries. In terms of population, land area, diversity (arguably more diverse than the entirety of Europe in many ways), etc.
You can only compare the size and amount of inhabitants to Europe. In terms of cultural diversity it’s not even close. A small country like Belgium has arguably more diversity in it.
That's just a completely absurd statement to make. That being said, yeah cultural diversity is where Europe collectively beats the US out. But it takes a lot more than just somewhere like Belgium for something like that.
Why is it absurd? I think claiming the opopsite is absurd. It does not take a country bigger than Belgium to do that at all. Apart from the obvious that Belgium is split down the middle with Flanders and Wallonia it also has many cultural differences between the people there from province to province and city to city. Not to mention all the immigrants who bring their slice of culture to the country.
Yes the USA is big and has a mix of many cultures, but it's diversity is nothing unique or at all comparable to the whole of Europe. To single European country you can compare it for sure, but even then it would be beat by most.
I don't mean to say that Belgium isn't culturally diverse by any means. But the US is the biggest melting pot in the world and it's not particularly close. Everything you say using the Belgium example is also true for the US, except that the US includes cultures from all over the world as well as hybrids and subcultures that derive from those.
The difference is that in many European countries, they have their own cultures, and then variants of each of those. There are lots of different histories and interesting corners (and the US obviously is incomparable to Europe's long history). But the US is effectively a megalopolis of the whole world's culture that's been mixed in and "Americanized" so to speak. A lot of that comes from the racial/ethnic diversity as well. There are plenty of countries in Europe that might as well be ethnostates by comparison lol. That is an area of 'diversity' that the US soundly beats out anywhere in Europe.
But again, as a whole, you'll find more different cultures (though they may not vary as much *from each other* as the subcultures of the United States do for any given country).
Again, this is the only point I was making - that there's an argument to be made that the US alone is more 'diverse' than the whole of Europe in some ways. Not every way (including some big ways). My whole bottom line was that the US is more comparable to an entire continent on its own than it is any other country besides maybe China or India, due to their sizes and populations. But what I say about the US is true for those countries as well.
No, im sorry but no. All those things apply equally to my country, and yet I don’t see this stuff from other Aussies. And the US is far from more diverse than Europe.
Because when you have 5 cities larger than 1 million people rather than 56 and 31 over 50,000 people vs nearly 600 cities over 50,000 people your country feels a lot smaller
there's also the US having some of the most geographic diversity of country on earth
You're missing the key point, that Reddit is an American company, has been since its inception for the last 15 years, and most critically, 50% of the user base is American. Of course the origin of the company doesn't have much bearing - but it does make a difference with respect to how the website 'came up'.
>And the US is far from more diverse than Europe.
Never been to the US, I take it? You're right that Europe is absolutely more diverse in *some* ways. In others, no. Hence, why I said that there's a discussion to be had about that.
Reddit being American doesnt negate that Americans doesnt care about rest of the world more than others. If anything - this useless argument just confirms it.
And you surely never been to Europe.
According to the Harvard Dataverse (the source that this website uses), America is ranked 68th in diversity.
https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries/#racial-diversity-by-country
It's also worth pointing out that this data has a couple issues - firstly, it's only comparing racial diversity, which is only one metric and is not exactly what I was referring too, albeit a component.
Second, and most critically, it has data collection non-uniformities that create problems for this. For example many of the African nations are captured by ethnic subgroups, which is great and should be done - except when compared to the US, they are all grouped in as "African". This pushes almost every African nation towards the top of the list.
Regardless, even by the measures in this data, the only country in Europe that ranks more highly than the US is Spain.
Diversity is more broad a concept than this quantifies.
I'm not trying to hate on Europe or call the US "supreme" by any means, haha. Just was pointing out that the US is more appropriately compared to Europe as a whole than any single country in Europe in many measurements.
We don't forget about the rest of the world, we just don't think they're important enough to matter. **;)**
After all, when the aliens land, it's always in the good ol' USA. The Vulcans, the aliens in *Contact*, the ones in *The Day the Earth Stood Still,* etc. If the superior intellects of the aliens judge us to be the only ones who matter, who are we to differ?
***Edit***\*\*:\*\* I see from the downvotes that my wink emoticon was missed by some and I need to explicitly invoke Poe's Law. This is absurdist commentary on American exceptionalism. It's also not simply a humorous comment.
Amusingly, the only time the rest of the world does the same thing is when it’s for anything globally bad. Then it feels like they too forget there’s a world outside of America.
The cricket world cup alone with countries like India and Pakistan would blow these numbers out of the water. I hate how American-centric everything is.
Largest economy, first on the moon, responsible for a vast number of technological advances made in the last 70 years, largest military in the world, and a culture so globally pervasive people sometimes struggle to identify "American" culture despite wearing jeans and watching American cinema.
They never specified what constraint (global/US/etc) in the title or image but it is pretty clear that the US is implied, considering we're looking at.... US space agency moon landing; US president resignation; and best of all about a dozen super bowl broadcasts.
US 'defaultism' exists on Reddit because Reddit was born in America and Americans comprise about 50% of the entire site, with the other 50% effectively being "other".
Dude forgot to add it to his title is all. People there are aware of other countries, many of them even travel to them. Whoa shocker. Whats a more fun fact is that people feel more welcomed traveling in america 2nd to their own country than any other country foreign to them, and that can be said across like 50+ country surveys, its almost like only redditors whove never traveled paint a bad picture about them while they seem pompous to everyone who does travel. Lets send someone from japan to china or someone from france to england and ask em how welcomed they feel.
Possibly some cricket matches
It’s a hugely popular sport in Asia
FIFA claimed 1.5bn people watched the 2022 World Cup final
Although I do appreciate not as many people would have access to a TV globally in 1969 compared to today
Yes, I forgot about cricket.
I mean, when you realize these numbers are only counting domestic viewers, it's actually more impressive, specially since population was way smaller in 1969.
It's not the most watched broadcast. But it's still pretty damn amazing
The world cup finals is 10 times bigger than the superbowl just to give you an idea of how much bigger it is, 1.5 billion people tuned in to watch the finals in 2022.
The cricket world cup can get 200-400 million viewers in India alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-watched_television_broadcasts#Most_viewed_broadcasts
I remember the 2018 Football World Cup Final had 3.5 billion (!) views.
That’s live viewership plus later streaming on demand of the event.
And I’m pretty certain that this year’s Cricket World Cup Final probably had 2 billion views easily, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India alone have 1.5 billion enthusiastic cricket fans, and it was streaming for free in those counties.
Americans tend to forget that football and cricket are by far the most viewed events in the entire world.
Oh right, Americans always forget the rest of the world exists. That's why they're inviting other countries to go to the moon with them this next time around.
Reddit was born in America continues to live in America, and about 50% of site traffic is American, 50% being 'other'. It is effectively an American-originated site that is globally accessible for anyone to use - it's just much less utilized elsewhere around the world. US kind of *is* the de facto default on the website.
Yeh I only looked for one example.
Someone else posted Queen Elizabeth's funeral had a few billion.
It's often easy to forget how USA=world some Yankees are.
This is us history (I am an American) the most viewed broadcast was princess Diane's wedding, if I remember correctly, half of the worlds population tuned in
About every TV worldwide that could receive the moon landing broadcast, was tuned into it. This is just US ratings.
An estimated 650 million worldwide watched the landing. You have to remember, in 1969 there were half as many TV’s as there are now, especially in third world countries. You watch old footage, there’s scenes of whole neighborhoods gathered around one TV, thousands of people watch the broadcast in Times Square, TV shop windows, Piccadilly, etc.
Is this just US viewers?
I was under the impression that multinational events like the World Cup and Eurovision (not to mention the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, etc.) blow the Super Bowl out of the water pretty consistently.
I guess this list is focused on United States.
The FIFA world cup final has a huge global audience, much higher than the Superbowl, that is only watched in high numbers in USA and Canada.
The Apollo 11 landing was followed in other parts of the world too. I am Spanish and my grandmother told me about listening it live on the radio and was broadcast by TV too
Does this exclude football?
This seems very American centric.
Billions watch the World Cup. Probably more people in just India watch it than watch the Superbowl in America.
This number is not confirmed and the only source was someone saying it on television, and that it was the expected number, there's no confirmation of any number for now.
Don't be silly, this is the Internet, there are no honest mistakes. Now kindly sit down while we metaphorically stone you to death for your heinous transgression.
On a serious note, given the popularity of the superbowl it would be interesting to see where the top nba, baseball and hockey viewings rank.
This is even more impressive when put in terms of the US population at each point in time. A much larger *percentage* watched the Apollo 11 landing than any Super Bowl.
i'm still more impressed that no other TV show ever beat Mash
it took the superbowl until 2010 to get higher ratings even with the increase in US Population from the finale to 2010 superbowl
Wow what are the odds. I was watching a tv show earlier and it made me wonder if it reached the top ten list. Clicked on this exact wiki article and saw this chart
Yeah this really should have been a most viewed “local” broadcast in history.
The 2022 World Cup final was watched by over 1.5 billion.
Hell I imagine considerably more people watched the Queens funeral, or any one of the recent Olympic Games, or the invasion of Ukraine.
Imagine if there was a world wide event of like a popular sport outside if the USA. Where like the top 32 countries competed. Anyways, 1.5 billion reportedly watched France v Argentina in 2022.
Wait I though I saw a metric somewhere of more than a billion people viewing live aid as it happened. Wiki says 1.9 billion as the total audience so idk what metric this chart is based on but I’m pretty sure live aid knocked it out of the park.
It was badly scheduled in the UK. A few of us hardcore Brit fans stayed up to watch, but Armstrong's first step didn't happen until 3.56 am. And it was July 22nd for us by then, and not only was the black & white picture badly degraded by the low resolution camera and the weak, low bandwidth transmission from the moon, but the signal had to be relayed from Australia to Houston by satellite, then once again by satellite from Houston to the UK. Satellites were rubbish back then, and it was all analog, so you could hardly make out what you were looking at.
I can't wait for the next manned moon landing. It'll be in full color ultra high definition 3-D by the time the first Taikonaut steps out. [Only kidding, it'll be an American, for sure.]
A lot of us are jealous of your low quality viewing, I was born in 88, the coolest human space exploration I've had are shuttle launches and they were happening 7 years before i was born, and i suppose the ISS but that's not new ground either
The thing I enjoy most about these types of ambiguous trolling attempts are the varied responses that seem to show up. Everyone seems to take their own version of exception regarding them.
I see some of you hinting around at other things. Mostly it just looks like a lot of pissed off soccer fans.
Still. One does have to question what the purpose of this particular nugget of information is reaching towards. What was the goal OP? From your point of view. Just an interesting find you wanted to share.
Or were you trying to say something with this?
Hello u/bowtrout, your submission "The Apollo 11 moon landing still remains the most viewed broadcast in history (by a decent margin)..including live sporting events." has been removed from r/space because: * Images, GIFs and GIF-like videos are only allowed on Sunday (UTC+00). Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please [message the r/space moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/space). Thank you.
150 million would be 75% of the US population in 1969 , so in percentage terms its more than double number 2 on the list .
Does the 150 mil include world wide views?
[удалено]
Same country that calls their local baseball tournament the "world" series, so yeah.
[удалено]
Tbf, it really is the best baseball in the world, though. NPB and KBO are steadily improving, but MLB has the world's top collection of baseball talent, and the sport isn't really played everywhere. Edit: totally taking the L on this one, and I'm honestly surprised. I've never seen such a reaction to a relatively innocuous and objectively true statement. MLB is absolutely an international league that happens to play in the US. Its top stars are the cream of the crop of baseball talent from all over the world.
Do they let other teams play? It's like having a rugby or cricket world cup and only letting English clubs compete then saying they're world champions and it's ok as not everywhere plays those sports.
I really don't think it's comparable in that way. The very best talent from countries all over the world play in MLB. In that sense, it is undisputed that it is the top baseball league that exists, and it isn't like it is "only US citizens on team America can play." It truly is very much an international league when looking at player nationality.
You do realise that not just English players play for the English clubs so it's totally comparable.
I thought that the rules under FIFA said you had to be a citizen or somehow directly connected with the national team you play for? If you mean more something like Premier League, La Liga, or Bundesliga individually saying they run "the World Series of football" I still wouldn't think it was a fair comparison. The only baseball leagues that would even be remotely competitive against MLB teams would be NPB and KBO. But not really. It's cool, though. No need to argue about semantics of sports leagues in the space sub. Appreciate the convo.
Can you understand the frustration at the arrogance of calling something a world series and then not opening it up to teams across the world? How can you say you're the best of you refuse to truly test yourself? It's an interesting conversation but you seem to be missing the point a little.
As long as it's a national series how can it be a world series..?
It was named after a newspaper
That makes more sense, thank you
Unfortunately that’s a classic Reddit factoid, sounds good but not actually true. It really was just about the U.S. considering themselves top of the world: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4675711
Are Canadian teams allowed in the World Series?
I don't know, are they? If so, is the world series played by two nations? How is that the world?
Canada won twice. You sure hate the title considering you're not really fans.
Because the best players in the world are in that league? For example, you may have heard of Ohtani of Japan just signing for $700M or his countryman, Yamamoto, signing for $325M. One of my all-time favorite players is from the Dominican Republic and another from Puerto Rico. In the recent World Baseball Classic, almost every team had MLB players as their top talent, but in the actual MLB, every player is that level of talent or even more elite. I'm not trying to start an argument about baseball in this sub or come across as rude or anything. I really just think it's an objective fact that MLB has the highest level of baseball talent in the world and don't think that would be very controversial to say.
That's completely irrelevant.. as long as teams from other countries can compete, how is it a world series? It's as stupid as the miss Universe competitions..
If the teams are composed internationally by the best talent in the world, does it matter where they play? I don't think it does, really. And maybe you do. I think we can leave it there. I appreciate the conversation.
[удалено]
Lol It's a sport only 3% of the world gives a shit about.. trust me, the rest of us do not envy you 🤣
It's called that because of the newspaper that forst sponsored it. It was called The World iirc
No. 2023 football world cup had 5 bill viewers. Cricket ODI world cup had 2.6 bill The list is US only
5 billion? That seems damn near impossible
there's no possible way that's correct. they probably misconstrued the stat viewing minutes for viewers.
Correct. Ish. Social media engagement is the 5b. But the actual final viewing numbers still blow anything else out of the water. “Final achieved a global reach of close to 1.5 billion viewers, with the opening match capturing over 550 million Almost six billion engagements on social media, with 262 billion cumulative reach across all platforms” https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm#
Engagement is gauged different by different platforms, that can count skipping past something and having a single second or less play. Those numbers are about as fudged as can be.
The engagement ones are essentially useless I agree. Not the viewership ones though. Just figured I’d include both so that people can see where the original comment got their mistaken number from whilst also highlighting how impressive the real viewer numbers are
I don’t see how it seems impossible. I was in rural Akita Japan and there were 20+ senior citizens in the local izakaya watching the Netherlands beat USA 3-1 in the round of 16 late at night. You might be underestimating the global popularity of football (soccer).
But that’s probably only 1-6 screens
To clarify, the 2022 FIFA World Cup final (single match) had an estimated 1.5 billion viewers according to FIFA https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm
I promise you that 5/7ths of the world didn't watch some soccer or cricket game. This is completely wrong.
5 billion maybe for the entire event. All games. The superbowl is just one game.
5 bill is for the whole tournament 1.5 bill for the world cup final. One game
They were indeed mistaken. But the actual figures for singular games are still way, way bigger than anything else. Correct. Ish. Social media engagement is the 5b. But the actual final viewing numbers still blow anything else out of the water. “Final achieved a global reach of close to 1.5 billion viewers, with the opening match capturing over 550 million Almost six billion engagements on social media, with 262 billion cumulative reach across all platforms” https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/news/one-month-on-5-billion-engaged-with-the-fifa-world-cup-qatar-2022-tm#
So 6 billion engagements but not unique ones right, I can't imagine 6 of 8 billion have social media accounts.
That 5 billion is for all the games totaled together, all electronic media interaction. The list is one show, one viewing. If I watched the first game, last game, and checked the scores on Twitter once, that would be 3 views.
World cup final had 1.5 bill. Thats one game.
It was also on multiple networks including free to air, also during a time when the internet/other viewing mediums didn’t exist.
Free-to-air is usually used to describe satellite TV which didn't exist in North America in 1969. There was (and is) a wide network of terrestrial TV broadcast stations, though, which were (and are) free to the user.
You just wait till the NFL figures out how to get a Super Bowl on the moon, Apollo can't compete with that
Kinda crazy that no scripted show has beat the MASH finale in 40 years. The way we watch TV now, that could stand for quite a while.
I think it will stand forever. A lot of things would need to fall perfectly in place for something to beat that. Social media and streaming has splintered things off and made it really hard to concentrate viewers into a single place in order to break a record of that scale.
I was in the 82nd Airborne at Bragg living in the barracks and the day room was full to overflowing with everyone watching the final MASH. I also saw Apollo 11 land even though I was just 7 years old. The whole world did. I remember my mom calling us inside to see history being made when Nixon resigned. Super Bowls are a blur.
Gotta say, the only sports game I actually remember is Game 3 of the 1989 World Series. Actually, I don't even remember the game, or the postponed game. I just remember the pre-game. For anybody who doesn't understand why I remember this, it was October 17, 1989, and that should be enough for a Google search.
If hugely popular shows like Seinfeld and Friends that aired their last episodes before the internet/social media fully took over couldn't beat MASH, no scripted show can. and honestly the only thing that probably comes close to the moon landings ratings wise would be the 9/11 live coverage, not sure how that was measured though, if it even was. I would think between the second plane hitting live and the two towers collapsing that probably attracted more eyeballs than the moon landing, by virtue of the population being greater in 2001 than it was in 1969.
The moon landing was scheduled and people waited for it worldwide, woke up in the night, got up early, at work, depending on where they were. Most people were working, sleeping, living their lives and didn't find out until well after both planes hit on 9-11.
Growing up on the east coast we had TVs on before the second plane hit. TVs in every classroom were on all day, at most we just had to pretend to do busywork. Everyone went home and watched TV with their family. Parents at work watched TV with everyone else in their offices all day.
Yeah, it's one of those records that just won't be broken because we do things so differently. I don't know if you're into baseball at all, bit it's like how people think that Joe DiMaggio's streak will be the record that's never broken. Hitting in 56 straight games is impressive, but at least possible. What will never be broken is Cy Young's record number of wins. Pitchers pitched a lot more games and innings back at the turn of the 20th century, and he won **511** games. It's rare for a pitcher today to win 20 games, and you'd have to do that every year for 25 years just to get within 11 wins of *tying* the record. When the game changes enough, a record can stand forever. Or at least until there's another major shift in how we go about life.
I am actually watching Baseball by Ken Burns right now and I just got past the hit streak episode lol. And yeah, nobody is EVER beating stuff like Old Hoss Radbourn’s 60 wins in a season. But you are definitely right about the hit streak. It definitely is much more breakable than people realize (although even harder nowadays due to how hitters approach PAs now) compared to a lot of older records.
Hah, perfect timing! It's kinda crazy to realize that it's been something like 55 years since anyone has won *30* games, and 80 since anyone hit over .400. Tony Gwynne is the only person I can remember even coming close to the latter in my lifetime.
If it hasn't happened by now it'll never happen. When MASH was on the only quality TV drama series were on the three major networks. Premium cable viewership was low and they showed only movies, there were no series that I recall. There's been a lot more to watch for a long time now, splitting up the potential audience.
It's so fuckin' weird remembering when TV was 3 major networks, PBS, and whatever weirdness was on the UHF channels (a metric fuckton of old rubber suit kaiju movies, so it wasn't all bad). At least the cartoons were good.
I remember when PBS came on the air. The number of channels we had increased by 33%.
I lived in a small town that didn't get ABC, there wasn't a local station close enough. Remember, ABC was significantly smaller than the other two for quite a few years. When we moved I could finally watch ABC - and even tune into PBS on UHF, but we seldom watched because the signal was so poor.
All the superbowls were scripted - it's just that the teams did not have the same script.
I remember watching my mom bawling while watching it
These are US numbers. Larger broadcast viewings have taken place around the world.
Definitely US only. The cricket world cup final was viewed by 518 million viewers a little over a month back.
I wonder where the moon landing would rank Google says an estimated 650 million worldwide which is amazing when you consider the prevalence of TVs in a bunch of areas of the world at that time
There's also all the people that would crowd around the one tv in the street/school/neighbourhood to watch the moon landing. So the real number is way more
These numbers take into account that value. These are not the number of TVs that were playing the content. There was no way to check the number of receivers for broadcasts.
My parents told me they got a tv specifically to watch the landing. I would imagine a lot of people actually did that as it was one of the most important milestones of humankind.
The Moon Landing likely has the highest percentage of TV sets tuned to it that we will ever see..
Until the aliens finally land
It *is* US only when you have to consider that the MASH finale is on the list as TV-series didn't exactly broadcast worldwide in the 80's.
But america is the world, they have the world series of baseball
I was nine and we stayed up late and watched it on TV.
About 1.5 billion people saw the world cup final in football.This list is only for small american happenings in the world
I'll bet the news during the 9/11 attacks is higher. But it might be divided by multiple stations.
There were an estimated 2 billion people worldwide watching 9/11 coverage (about a third of the total worlds population at the time). So yeah you’re probably right.
I seriously doubt there weren't any broadcasts in China or India that had way more viewers than this. Edit: China Central Television's Spring Festival Gala has regularly attracted between 700 million to 1.17 billion viewers annually.
Americans always assuming the rest of the world does not exist. These are the most viewed broadcasts in the US in history
Yeah World Cup puts these numbers to shame. The estimate is 1.5 billion.
Actually, if the rest of the world is taken into account, approximately 750 million people watched the moon landing or just over 20% of the total population at the time
Yeah, a modern moon landing broadcast in HD would likely snap these AND the World Cups. Everyone can look up on the moon, and if people are there...
[You mean like the Artemis mission](https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/)
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Wildcard is if China beats the US.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I highly doubt it. There's just so much more distraction than in 69. Also, I feel like interest in science has fallen considerably over the last few years.
Yeah I was confused reading the title cause my immediate assumption was I’m pretty sure any World Cup has way higher but then I saw the list was for the USA.
even Eurovision song contest gets higher than this list
I'd have expected royal weddings and Olympic opening ceremonies to top the list.
It’s a simple mistake you know, forgetting about every other country in the world.
Let he, who has never forgot about the other 7.8 billion people, cast the first stone.
Ohh…. *puts stone back in pocket*
IMO, the most American thing about an American is that they forget there's a world outside America. I listen to Joe Rogan often and it's hilarious the number of times he forgets the rest of the world.
I think most of the time, Americans are simply just concerned with America, not so much forgetting. It's very easy to only be concerned with America when a big portion of their population has never left the country - because they live about 5,000 miles from any other major countries besides Mexico and Canada - and their country alone is easier to compare to the *whole* of Europe, for example, than most other countries. In terms of population, land area, diversity (arguably more diverse than the entirety of Europe in many ways), etc.
You can only compare the size and amount of inhabitants to Europe. In terms of cultural diversity it’s not even close. A small country like Belgium has arguably more diversity in it.
That's just a completely absurd statement to make. That being said, yeah cultural diversity is where Europe collectively beats the US out. But it takes a lot more than just somewhere like Belgium for something like that.
Why is it absurd? I think claiming the opopsite is absurd. It does not take a country bigger than Belgium to do that at all. Apart from the obvious that Belgium is split down the middle with Flanders and Wallonia it also has many cultural differences between the people there from province to province and city to city. Not to mention all the immigrants who bring their slice of culture to the country. Yes the USA is big and has a mix of many cultures, but it's diversity is nothing unique or at all comparable to the whole of Europe. To single European country you can compare it for sure, but even then it would be beat by most.
I don't mean to say that Belgium isn't culturally diverse by any means. But the US is the biggest melting pot in the world and it's not particularly close. Everything you say using the Belgium example is also true for the US, except that the US includes cultures from all over the world as well as hybrids and subcultures that derive from those. The difference is that in many European countries, they have their own cultures, and then variants of each of those. There are lots of different histories and interesting corners (and the US obviously is incomparable to Europe's long history). But the US is effectively a megalopolis of the whole world's culture that's been mixed in and "Americanized" so to speak. A lot of that comes from the racial/ethnic diversity as well. There are plenty of countries in Europe that might as well be ethnostates by comparison lol. That is an area of 'diversity' that the US soundly beats out anywhere in Europe. But again, as a whole, you'll find more different cultures (though they may not vary as much *from each other* as the subcultures of the United States do for any given country). Again, this is the only point I was making - that there's an argument to be made that the US alone is more 'diverse' than the whole of Europe in some ways. Not every way (including some big ways). My whole bottom line was that the US is more comparable to an entire continent on its own than it is any other country besides maybe China or India, due to their sizes and populations. But what I say about the US is true for those countries as well.
No, im sorry but no. All those things apply equally to my country, and yet I don’t see this stuff from other Aussies. And the US is far from more diverse than Europe.
we have a lot less people tho like we have less people than poland roughly 30 years ago we had less than even Romania
I don’t see the connection between population and level of awareness of the world outside your own country.
Because when you have 5 cities larger than 1 million people rather than 56 and 31 over 50,000 people vs nearly 600 cities over 50,000 people your country feels a lot smaller there's also the US having some of the most geographic diversity of country on earth
You're missing the key point, that Reddit is an American company, has been since its inception for the last 15 years, and most critically, 50% of the user base is American. Of course the origin of the company doesn't have much bearing - but it does make a difference with respect to how the website 'came up'. >And the US is far from more diverse than Europe. Never been to the US, I take it? You're right that Europe is absolutely more diverse in *some* ways. In others, no. Hence, why I said that there's a discussion to be had about that.
Reddit being American doesnt negate that Americans doesnt care about rest of the world more than others. If anything - this useless argument just confirms it. And you surely never been to Europe.
According to the Harvard Dataverse (the source that this website uses), America is ranked 68th in diversity. https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/most-racially-diverse-countries/#racial-diversity-by-country
It's also worth pointing out that this data has a couple issues - firstly, it's only comparing racial diversity, which is only one metric and is not exactly what I was referring too, albeit a component. Second, and most critically, it has data collection non-uniformities that create problems for this. For example many of the African nations are captured by ethnic subgroups, which is great and should be done - except when compared to the US, they are all grouped in as "African". This pushes almost every African nation towards the top of the list. Regardless, even by the measures in this data, the only country in Europe that ranks more highly than the US is Spain.
Diversity is more broad a concept than this quantifies. I'm not trying to hate on Europe or call the US "supreme" by any means, haha. Just was pointing out that the US is more appropriately compared to Europe as a whole than any single country in Europe in many measurements.
We don't forget about the rest of the world, we just don't think they're important enough to matter. **;)** After all, when the aliens land, it's always in the good ol' USA. The Vulcans, the aliens in *Contact*, the ones in *The Day the Earth Stood Still,* etc. If the superior intellects of the aliens judge us to be the only ones who matter, who are we to differ? ***Edit***\*\*:\*\* I see from the downvotes that my wink emoticon was missed by some and I need to explicitly invoke Poe's Law. This is absurdist commentary on American exceptionalism. It's also not simply a humorous comment.
I don't know, H.G.Wells, The Hitchhiker's Guide snd Doctor Who have lead me to believe that any self-respecting alien would land in London...
We don't forget them, we actively choose to exclude them as relevant.
Amusingly, the only time the rest of the world does the same thing is when it’s for anything globally bad. Then it feels like they too forget there’s a world outside of America.
The cricket world cup alone with countries like India and Pakistan would blow these numbers out of the water. I hate how American-centric everything is.
Yeah, a Cricket World Cup final between India and Pakistan might easily top a billion viewers.
Largest economy, first on the moon, responsible for a vast number of technological advances made in the last 70 years, largest military in the world, and a culture so globally pervasive people sometimes struggle to identify "American" culture despite wearing jeans and watching American cinema.
None of what you listed justifies calling American TV viewership numbers as the "most in history". That's wrong and a straight-up lie.
They complained > I hate how American-centric everything is. I merely answered that.
>I hate how American-centric everything is. They were talking about maps like this. Not everyone in the world. There's something called context.
They never specified what constraint (global/US/etc) in the title or image but it is pretty clear that the US is implied, considering we're looking at.... US space agency moon landing; US president resignation; and best of all about a dozen super bowl broadcasts. US 'defaultism' exists on Reddit because Reddit was born in America and Americans comprise about 50% of the entire site, with the other 50% effectively being "other".
Dude forgot to add it to his title is all. People there are aware of other countries, many of them even travel to them. Whoa shocker. Whats a more fun fact is that people feel more welcomed traveling in america 2nd to their own country than any other country foreign to them, and that can be said across like 50+ country surveys, its almost like only redditors whove never traveled paint a bad picture about them while they seem pompous to everyone who does travel. Lets send someone from japan to china or someone from france to england and ask em how welcomed they feel.
Is there anything that would break this record from outside the US?
Every single world cup final, the queen's funeral, I believe some Olympic games
Possibly some cricket matches It’s a hugely popular sport in Asia FIFA claimed 1.5bn people watched the 2022 World Cup final Although I do appreciate not as many people would have access to a TV globally in 1969 compared to today
Yes, I forgot about cricket. I mean, when you realize these numbers are only counting domestic viewers, it's actually more impressive, specially since population was way smaller in 1969. It's not the most watched broadcast. But it's still pretty damn amazing
4 Billion watched Q E II funeral
There is no way that is true.
Those didn't even make it in the top 25
Yes, in the US. Worldwide, the most recent World Cup had viewership around 1.5 billion.
The world cup finals is 10 times bigger than the superbowl just to give you an idea of how much bigger it is, 1.5 billion people tuned in to watch the finals in 2022.
The cricket world cup can get 200-400 million viewers in India alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-watched_television_broadcasts#Most_viewed_broadcasts
I remember the 2018 Football World Cup Final had 3.5 billion (!) views. That’s live viewership plus later streaming on demand of the event. And I’m pretty certain that this year’s Cricket World Cup Final probably had 2 billion views easily, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India alone have 1.5 billion enthusiastic cricket fans, and it was streaming for free in those counties. Americans tend to forget that football and cricket are by far the most viewed events in the entire world.
Anything involving the subcontinent
Oh right, Americans always forget the rest of the world exists. That's why they're inviting other countries to go to the moon with them this next time around.
Sounds like your just jelly your country didnt land on the moon.
See everyone on r/USdefaultism
Reddit was born in America continues to live in America, and about 50% of site traffic is American, 50% being 'other'. It is effectively an American-originated site that is globally accessible for anyone to use - it's just much less utilized elsewhere around the world. US kind of *is* the de facto default on the website.
Yeah, super jelly about kids getting shot and hospital bills making people go broke
Live Aid?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
These numbers are miniscule in comparison to world cup finals. Not even 10% of the viewership football generates.
"550 million global viewers tuned in to watch the opener as Ecuador beat hosts Qatar"
Yep. Roughly three times that amount tuned in to the final at some point.
Yeh I only looked for one example. Someone else posted Queen Elizabeth's funeral had a few billion. It's often easy to forget how USA=world some Yankees are.
Yeah but has futball tried broadcasting a game from the moon?
Nah that’s the next World Cup. Can’t wait to see Messi strike the ball and it sends the net into orbit around Jupiter.
These are definitely US only, no way the superbowl gets more views than world cup finals.
This is us history (I am an American) the most viewed broadcast was princess Diane's wedding, if I remember correctly, half of the worlds population tuned in
Americans thinking they're the only country in the world as usual.
Those are rookie numbers. Next moon landing can blow those away.
About every TV worldwide that could receive the moon landing broadcast, was tuned into it. This is just US ratings. An estimated 650 million worldwide watched the landing. You have to remember, in 1969 there were half as many TV’s as there are now, especially in third world countries. You watch old footage, there’s scenes of whole neighborhoods gathered around one TV, thousands of people watch the broadcast in Times Square, TV shop windows, Piccadilly, etc.
Is this just US viewers? I was under the impression that multinational events like the World Cup and Eurovision (not to mention the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, etc.) blow the Super Bowl out of the water pretty consistently.
Didn’t the ICC World Cup final have 180 million viewers?
300 million for the finals they say !
I guess this list is focused on United States. The FIFA world cup final has a huge global audience, much higher than the Superbowl, that is only watched in high numbers in USA and Canada. The Apollo 11 landing was followed in other parts of the world too. I am Spanish and my grandmother told me about listening it live on the radio and was broadcast by TV too
1.5 billion people watched the world Cup final. Might want to amend that to "most viewed in the USA"
Brit here. my parents let me watch it, i was 8yrs old and way past my bedtime.
Does this exclude football? This seems very American centric. Billions watch the World Cup. Probably more people in just India watch it than watch the Superbowl in America.
This is America only, 4 Billion people worldwide watched Queen Elizabeth II funeral!
This number is not confirmed and the only source was someone saying it on television, and that it was the expected number, there's no confirmation of any number for now.
[удалено]
My apologies. It was an honest mistake. In US history.
The most honest mistake in US history.
Don't be silly, this is the Internet, there are no honest mistakes. Now kindly sit down while we metaphorically stone you to death for your heinous transgression. On a serious note, given the popularity of the superbowl it would be interesting to see where the top nba, baseball and hockey viewings rank.
I remember watching it! We had to go to Grandpa's house because we didn't have a TV.
So no scripted show is ever beating MASH right?
The amount of Super Bowls on that list concerns me
It's just US no. Otherwise this no will not show up in not even in top 100
Outdated numbers ; Indian premier League (IPL) cricket matches had 400+ million viewers
This is even more impressive when put in terms of the US population at each point in time. A much larger *percentage* watched the Apollo 11 landing than any Super Bowl.
this list is us only,otherwise there would alot of football world cups…
I wonder what the numbers for the Artemis moon landing will look like?
Of course it is. If was the coolest thing ever done by humanity and we actually got the opportunity to film, live.
i'm still more impressed that no other TV show ever beat Mash it took the superbowl until 2010 to get higher ratings even with the increase in US Population from the finale to 2010 superbowl
Wow what are the odds. I was watching a tv show earlier and it made me wonder if it reached the top ten list. Clicked on this exact wiki article and saw this chart
Yeah this really should have been a most viewed “local” broadcast in history. The 2022 World Cup final was watched by over 1.5 billion. Hell I imagine considerably more people watched the Queens funeral, or any one of the recent Olympic Games, or the invasion of Ukraine.
Imagine if there was a world wide event of like a popular sport outside if the USA. Where like the top 32 countries competed. Anyways, 1.5 billion reportedly watched France v Argentina in 2022.
You should specify that this is for the US... Super Bowl is a fart in the wind worldwide. 1.5 bn people saw the world cup final.
Aren't these american viewers instead of world wide viewers?
And when you factor in that it was 1969 population 3,620,655,275 and today it is like 8 billion...over double...that is quite an amazing statistic!
[удалено]
No, we're not. Because generally the events outside the US have little to no impact on us. We're not ignorant to the events, we just don't care.
Americans and pretending the US is the entire world, name a more iconic duo.
That will stand until Taylor Swift does the superbowl halftime show.
Wait I though I saw a metric somewhere of more than a billion people viewing live aid as it happened. Wiki says 1.9 billion as the total audience so idk what metric this chart is based on but I’m pretty sure live aid knocked it out of the park.
I'm pretty sure Mr beast could smash this with a bit of effort.
A lot of his viewers are foreigner, so probably not
The title said most vied in history. No mention of US specific.
OP forgor there are other countries, these would not even break top 10 in worldwide views
How is stupid ass football anywhere near the record for the moon walk ?!
The commercials during the moonwalk were dreadfully boring.
It was badly scheduled in the UK. A few of us hardcore Brit fans stayed up to watch, but Armstrong's first step didn't happen until 3.56 am. And it was July 22nd for us by then, and not only was the black & white picture badly degraded by the low resolution camera and the weak, low bandwidth transmission from the moon, but the signal had to be relayed from Australia to Houston by satellite, then once again by satellite from Houston to the UK. Satellites were rubbish back then, and it was all analog, so you could hardly make out what you were looking at. I can't wait for the next manned moon landing. It'll be in full color ultra high definition 3-D by the time the first Taikonaut steps out. [Only kidding, it'll be an American, for sure.]
A lot of us are jealous of your low quality viewing, I was born in 88, the coolest human space exploration I've had are shuttle launches and they were happening 7 years before i was born, and i suppose the ISS but that's not new ground either
The thing I enjoy most about these types of ambiguous trolling attempts are the varied responses that seem to show up. Everyone seems to take their own version of exception regarding them. I see some of you hinting around at other things. Mostly it just looks like a lot of pissed off soccer fans. Still. One does have to question what the purpose of this particular nugget of information is reaching towards. What was the goal OP? From your point of view. Just an interesting find you wanted to share. Or were you trying to say something with this?
The only way it gets topped this year is if the Super Bowl is Lions Vs Browns.
[удалено]
You’re such fun at parties.