To: Pravious
I thought Drudge's headline meant that 24 was shut out of winning any awards. The line above it states the ratings for the Golden Globes were 50% better than 24.
However, I think the ratings are increasingly unreliable. It has been a long time since I've watched a show live. I record 24 so I can review it to see what the hell just happened?
88 posted on
01/16/2007 6:31:35 AM PST by
KarlInOhio
(Somoans: The (low) wage slaves in the Pelosi-Starkist complex.)
To: KarlInOhio
However, I think the ratings are increasingly unreliable. It has been a long time since I've watched a show live. I record 24 so I can review it to see what the hell just happened? Exactly. The Nielsen ratings are hopelessly obsolete. Every person I know either has TIVO or other DVR system with their cable or satellite company, and never miss a show they want to see.
To: KarlInOhio
Nieson ratings are a joke. If the ratings were actually based on what the majority of people were watching(as in being able to tell which cable channel a user is watching in every household), then I might put more stock in them.
But Nielson chooses people at random and gives them a device that records what they watch for about 2-6 months.The total amount of people is around .00000000001 percent of the US population.
So the odds of getting a really good idea of what people watch are virtually nill. But at least Nielson can claim they are right and rake in the moola.
160 posted on
01/16/2007 6:47:01 AM PST by
Post-Neolithic
(Money only makes Communists rich Communists)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson