Posted on 11/19/2003 2:30:04 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK (AP) -- CBS pulled a Michael Jackson music special planned for next week, saying it would be "inappropriate" to air given the new charges that the star molested a child.
Authorities in Santa Barbara, Calif. issued an arrest warrant for the pop star on molestation charges. Jackson has denied the charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Maybe not "despite" but rather "because of?" It's a pretty big assumption that these two would automatically be great ratings-getters.
Cite? Ratings? Link? No, the article provides no data BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY YET. We're still IN the sweeps period - you get the ratings after the sweep is over. This little gratuitous sentence is whole fiction and has no place in the article
They are winning the rationgs night to night per say...so if they win the majority of the nights then they will most likely win sweeps ratings come in night to night....
CBS is benefitting from having a string of Jerry Bruckheimer-produced hits running - both CSI's come to mind. But once again, there's a difference between winning "the overnights" and winning the entire sweep. In fact, you can appear to win a bunch of overnights and still come in second in the total sweep period. Overnights are major markets only, sweeps count everyone metered.
My major beef is that the article does what so many other mainscream media articles do - positing an unfounded supposition as fact without any supporting evidence.
Michael
The article failed to provide any evidence to back its claim that See BS was "dominating" the sweeps. If it had added one phrase, "having six of the Top 10 Nielsen-rated shows" - then it would have drawn no fire from me. I just abhor media articles that assert something as fact with no evidenciary support.
Michael
I'd heard the Scott Peterson special was an All-Star Pro-Am Bass Masters tournament.
Either an R. Kelly special or The New Kobe Bryant Variety Hour.
Actually, "dominating" isn't quite the proper description either. Considering in years past the viewership was over 40 million for a number one show and 20 million was more of an audience for a show out of the top 20.
19 million viewers for the top rated show? I believe Rush Limbaugh pulls in 20 million listeners.
Then the next highest show they have is in 4th place with a drop off of over 5 million people, and it's a sort of spin-off of the top rated show.
The "Big-3" dinosaurs seem to have been struck by an asteroid of viewer revulsion.
"Dominating" the sweeps is now the equivalent of the largest "you-know-what" in the punch bowl.
The media reporting on the media...objective, eh?
When the numbers are tallied, each network is going to crow about how they won in some respect. Even the worst performing daytime drama wins a certain demo in its time period.
You're 100% spot on about the network being carried on the drawing power of tandem CSI shows...they even used two of them as filler for the time slot that was to have the RR slash job. Throw the soft-core Victoria's Secret sideshow into the mix and they have bragging rights.
I've seen numbers twisted nine ways to Sunday just so a station/network can claim SOMETHING. If it's not an outright Ratings win, it's a "The competition skews older" story, a "we have more higher-income viewers" or "we grew audience at a higher rate" bunch of bar graphs.
The way your comment read to me, it seemed that you knew something about how the sweeps work but could use some clarification. No intention of trying to take you to school or anything.
Those were the CSI season-opening two-parters. Repeats, en otras palabras. Frankly, if See BS didn't have Bruckheimer and "Survivor," they'd be coming in behind UPN and WB. The only show they've got in the top 10 other than Bruck and 'Vivor is "Everybody Over 70 With Blue Hair Loves Raymond." And that's because it's on Monday, with "Fear Factor" and Futebol as competition.
When I watch the NFL on Sunday (our team is almost always on See BS), I'm struck by all the show promos for shows we never would ever watch. Mostly lamer comedies that fall in the last 1/3 of the ratings heap.
If Bruckheimer were to get a better production deal at NBC, SeeBS would tank.
Michael
NBC was banking on The West Wing being evergreen - too self absorbed to see the eventual distaste a portion of the audience would develop due to the show's preachy nature and the unhinged personality of its anchor star. CSI has less potential for that kind of destruction but if it ever "comes on the market", the bidding war could tear it inside-out...CBS will pay a king's ransom to keep it, ABC and NBC will bid it way up to hurt CBS. For the Eye to be dependent on only a handful of shows indicates how precarious the network's status is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.