This is becoming awkward.

Twice now in the last week Glenn Beck has not been hosted by Glenn Beck himself, but instead by a Fox News substitute. (Once by Shep Smith, who anchored Egypt coverage, and once by Eric Bolling.) And twice now in the last week ratings for Glenn Beck without the marquee host at the helm were the same, if not slightly higher, than when Beck himself hosts the program. I'm not in the TV business, but that to me does not seem like a recipe for success. Especially for a show that cannot attract a single blue-chip advertiser.

As we've noted, Beck's ratings have been down so far in 2011. He averaged just fewer than 1.8 million viewers each night last month. Really, they've been down since November. And yes, they're down hugely from 12 months ago when Glenn Beck was averaging 3 million viewers each night. (i.e. Beck has lost more than one million viewers in the last year.) But has the current slump gotten to the point where Glenn Beck's ratings are just fine even when Beck himself doesn't show up for work?

Sure seems that way.

Last Friday, with Beck out of the Fox News picture, the 5 p.m. time slot recorded 1.9 million viewers, according to Nielsen. Then on Tuesday, Beck called in sick and according to Nielsen, 1.9 million viewers clocked in that night. Both nights represented slight increases over Beck's January average.

Question: You think Roger Ailes has noticed the trend?