Posted on 09/11/2006 12:08:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Actually, 3rd is OK for this kind of thing -- the question is the share and complete ratings.
I haven't looked at the link so it might be there.
It was a terrible movie...I turned it off after 90 minutes.
My son showed me the folded 20.00 dollar bill right after 9/11, it spooked me right out.
Pissed? Nawwww, I've been a FReeper long enough to know what transpired, and who's at fault. I didn't need to see ABC's whatewash of the events to learn anything new.
The game was way better.
13 million is pretty good -- probably 3 million of that is courtesy of the Loonie Left (who had a whole 200K people sign an online petition!).
They didn't need to win the night (nor could they) -- they just needed to do well (which they did).
It came in 2nd, beating Simpsons and Family guy. Not really sure you can say ABC failed at all, "Paths" got solid ratings. Of course since they're running it without commercials (and therefore without commercial revenue) the ratings are really just an academic curiousity.
I think Occam's razor applies here. ABC accomplished its objective and the ratings should go a little higher tonight.
According the Broadcasting & Cable "Path" came in 3rd.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6370582.html
Again, I am not sure I believe it since their was not ad revenue generated from "Path" thus it is to the Neilson's advantage to report that it came in 3rd.
Or perhaps the people just were pissed at ABC for the editing.
What is the NORMAL ratings for that time slot?
roger that. Skol vikes!
That's funny because this one
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/ratings/zap-ratings091006,0,2187911.story?coll=zap-tv-ratings-headlines
says it beat The Simpsons and Family Guy (5th and 6th paragraphs have all the numbers for the hours in question). I don't think it's ever to Neilson's advantage to fudge numbers, they make too much money being the gods of ratings, any fudge could really hurth them.
Yes, one set of the data is wrong.
Ditto, AFreeBird. I wasn't pissed at ABC. I don't need to see a dramatized version of what supposedly caused what was a true American tragedy. I've read the Commission Report. I'd like to think I'm informed (on most days). I had seen a number of well made programs on the Discovery Channel.
I didn't need any more info or any more spin. Particularly without any interruption at all. I can honor those we lost and honor those who serve for us without being glued to a chair for hours on end and watching someone else's kindasortahistory.
No, but he spends all of the allotted time jumping up and down like Big Bird, and choosing the best of the 3 or 4 plays the offensive coordinator just signalled in. This is usually followed by hitting Marvin Harrison somewhere between the 8 and the other 8.
On another board I frequent, someone actually argued that point. Unbelieveable!
Our satire is the left-wing's reality!
The same people who condem The Path to 9/11 reverently called Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 a truthful "documentary."
Hey, whatever works for him. He seems to get results, so I'll overlook the jumping around like Big Bird. And just cause the OffCoord sent in 3 or 4 plays doesn't mean there isn't a "None of the Above" option if Manning's read of the defense doesn't lend itself to one of those plays.
I think of all the NFL QB's, Payton probably gets cut a little slack calling the shots at the line.
And the lasting value of the game you watched is...what? I gave up on TV sports long ago as I could not see a good reason to waste my time watching them, but I'm not you or any one of the millions that get their weekly football or pro basketball, or baseball or hockey fixes. It's the US version of Bread and Circuses, but now called Beer and Sports, created especially for the hoi polloi.
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.