newsbot 269 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 CNET (a CBS-owned property, BTW) refers to a WSJ story (paid sub. req) saying that the Big 3 networks are deliberately misspelling newscasts in low-viewership time periods in order to drive up average ratings. Nielsen, for its part, appears to be more concerned with maintaining its business relationship with the networks than with publishing accurate audience measurements. The question is, will advertisers be equally willing to give this knowing deception a pass? (Clarification: Advertisers get the actuals, not the skewed numbers that the networks use for promotional purposes.) https://www.cnet.com/news/report-tv-networks-hide-bad-ratings-with-typos-and-misspellings/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbnews 344 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 ABC and NBC have done this before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 CNET (a CBS-owned property, BTW) refers to a WSJ story (paid sub. req) saying that the Big 3 networks are deliberately misspelling newscasts in low-viewership time periods in order to drive up average ratings. Nielsen, for its part, appears to be more concerned with maintaining its business relationship with the networks than with publishing accurate audience measurements. The question is, will advertisers be equally willing to give this knowing deception a pass? https://www.cnet.com/news/report-tv-networks-hide-bad-ratings-with-typos-and-misspellings/ This really makes us wonder if this practice has trickled down to the affiliate level...and your local nuzcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Red 104 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 They should take the ratings game out of the evening news and make it commerical free. Evening news is supposed to be a form of public service.e. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I remember an excerpt from Stelter's book where Good Morning America was Good Morning Amer. There are also instances of networks filling the 8:30 half hour either with little to no national advertisements. With no national ads the portion isn't rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I remember an excerpt from Stelter's book where Good Morning America was Good Morning Amer. There are also instances of networks filling the 8:30 half hour either with little to no national advertisements. With no national ads the portion isn't rated. Seems some San Diego stations were mis-spelling shows also... Actual Show Name = Mis-Spelling 10 News = 10 Nerp... The Now = The Nubs...(special guest I-Carly) 10 news @11pm = News Eight @ 11... KNSD News @ 4 =This Old House... FOX 5 Morning News = Benny Hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newstudent 43 Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 CNET (a CBS-owned property, BTW) refers to a WSJ story (paid sub. req) saying that the Big 3 networks are deliberately misspelling newscasts in low-viewership time periods in order to drive up average ratings. Nielsen, for its part, appears to be more concerned with maintaining its business relationship with the networks than with publishing accurate audience measurements. The question is, will advertisers be equally willing to give this knowing deception a pass? https://www.cnet.com/news/report-tv-networks-hide-bad-ratings-with-typos-and-misspellings/ Read the full Wall street journal article. The advertisers don't get deceived, they give them the real numbers. When the advertisers ask about the discrepancies, the networks explain that they do it for promotional purposes so a network can say they are the most watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsbot 269 Posted July 8, 2017 Author Share Posted July 8, 2017 Read the full Wall street journal article. The advertisers don't get devices, they give them the real numbers. When the advertisers ask about the descrepenct, the networks explain that they do it for promotional purposes so a network can say they are the most watched. The WSJ article is behind a paywall. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist 894 Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 They should take the ratings game out of the evening news and make it commerical free. Evening news is supposed to be a form of public service.e. News is a form of public service. The private commercial sector is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 News is a form of public service. The private commercial sector is not. Unbiased news IS the one of the highest forms of public service... probably a good time to remind some of the newer folks here that TV news WAS ALL public service back in the beginning days... up to the mid 1960's. The networks were tired of losing increasing large amounts of money on a busy world in the turbulent 60's. At the same time the likes of Al Primo were developing and launching ACTION NEWS and Eyewitness News. Just a reminder for the new kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1679 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Unbiased news IS the one of the highest forms of public service... probably a good time to remind some of the newer folks here that TV news WAS ALL public service back in the beginning days... up to the mid 1960's. The networks were tired of losing increasing large amounts of money on a busy world in the turbulent 60's. At the same time the likes of Al Primo were developing and launching ACTION NEWS and Eyewitness News. Just a reminder for the new kids... Yet back in the 60s and earlier there named sponsorship newscasts. Like there wasn't bias with those sponsors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Yet back in the 60s and earlier there named sponsorship newscasts. Like there wasn't bias with those sponsors. Actually not much if any... Cuz Morrow , Edwards, Brinkley Huntley or many of the others would have cut your nuts off. Those same guys got those sponsorship's banished from the set. The great Timex scandal...or the Camel sex tapes.... The world was a much smaller place back then. It wasn't perfect...but it worked for it's day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.