Talk:Nielsen ratings/Archives/2014

Proper noun/capitalization question

Technically since "Nielsen Ratings" is the name of a business shouldn't this be capitalized. It's not like dog or puppy. It's the actual specific title of a corporation. I think "Nielsen Ratings" is a proper noun that needs to be capitalized. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Table Consistencies

I noticed in the top rated programs table, American Idol is referred to as "American Idol - Tuesday" from 2003-2006 and those cells are merged. However, further down it is listed as "American Idol - Competition" for 2007-2008, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011, and also the cells are not merged in the case of those last two although they are consecutive. Can someone shed some light on this or shall I fix it? MarkMc1990 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Current ratings

Will this section ever be updated again? I notice that the the user who added it hasn't been here in about a month. I think it would be fine (if not downright useful) to keep this data or watch trends, etc. At least the Top 20 shows anyways. RADICALBENDER★ 20:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• IMO, this whole section should be deleted if nobody is going to maintain it. I'm not saying the data has no value, but to have "latest ratings" from January in September is pretty ridiculous. If anyone disagrees or is going to maintain this, add it back and pick up from where the previous user left off.--Isotope23 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Wow, it's been a while. I have professional experience working with Nielsen, and will put it on my watchlist to correct the innaccuracies from time to time. I've done an initial sweep of it. --Nephandus 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nephandus, can you sy "conflict of interest?"--68.85.27.47 02:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an edit page about Nielsen Media Research. I have knowledge about Nielsen Media Research gleaned from my professional experience working within the media industry. This has been a dead entry for a long time. I've merely corrected false information in accordance with wiki guidelines. It certainly doesn't read like an ad for Nielsen. If something is written on this page that is incorrect, then you should either correct it, or discuss it (as I have done). If you object to the idea of an informed person writing or editing on a subject that is relevant to his sphere of interests, and who can support his edits, then just what IS acceptable? --Nephandus 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom it reads "Complete weekly broadcast ratings can be found at Los Angeles Times' calendarlive.com." However, there's no real information there. Is it possible to actually find complete weekly broadcast ratings on the internet for free? If so, post it. I'm not just looking for the top 20 shows, I'm looking for it all.

Yes, there is a source on the internet for free broadcast and cable programming ratings - www.zap2it.com. The site also lists previous days prime ratings for the broadcast nets. Nephandus - I work with Nielsen data daily, so far what you have here is pretty good and I didn't find anything that would need to be corrected. There is one section that could be added and that is about competition or lack there of. There is couple start ups and co-ops that might worth mentioning. I have some info that I could add. Let me know if it should be.

Nephandus -- I'm not trying to be mean or even state that there is a conflict of interest, but if there is a definite anti-Nielsen tone to the article, there is definitely a pro-Nielsen tone to your comments. I've seen the faults of the Nielsen system and understand them somewhat -- I'm sure not as well as you. But I would definitely like to see the article have a more neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardssr (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

left took over your television?

That stuff about networks focusing on the 18-49 demographic just so that they can play liberal content sounds pretty dang wing-nutty. I moved it to criticism section, but I'm skeptical that it should be in the article at all. #1 It sounded a lot like someone plugging their book. #2 Looking at the sources, it sounds to me like the book is political entertainment more than non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.186.29 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

See Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV. The book is based on taped interviews with top television executives and other influential people in the business. Not sure what your claims are based on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that for a claim that there is a conspiracy to bias content using the ratings system, we should either have a reference to the interviews themselves or a corroborating source.(Preferably a source that is attempting to be impartial.) My claims are based on a priori skepticism. I can't rebut the claims if the only supporting evidence is interviews of a fellow claiming that he has tapes of interviews. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no claim of a conspiracy but simply that people naturally prefer to believe that the most important audience have similar views to themselves so that they then can make content with views similar to their own views. Also, Wikipedia does not aim to be the final judge of "The Truth" of statements but uses other criteria such as notability which this source passes since it has been mentioned in independent news media. Finally, the author would surely have been sued if he had not had strong supporting evidence for the claims he makes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The absence of a lawsuit strikes me as a particularly bad criterion for a reliable source. I agree that we do not need to judge "The Truth." If this viewpoint is neutral and well sourced, I'm not opposed to including it. But I'm not convinced that it is either neutral or well sourced. Both the citations are to publications which have a political agenda, both are interviewing the same person, the person quoted makes his claim based upon source material that is not publicly available. This strikes me as a WP:V, WP:RS, & WP:NPOV problem. Look at the wikipedia article on the book that is the ostensible source:

Vin Di Bona stood by the statements quoted from his interview but added that the material "was obtained in a duplicitous manner" accusing Shapiro of misrepresenting the nature of his book prior to interview. Marta Kauffman said that "the idea that we are pushing an agenda is nonsense" adding that "the dangerous thing about the book is it implies we don't want a dialogue." Another of the interviewees, George Schlatter, rejected suggestions that Hollywood is conspiring to exclude the conservative perspective and accused the right wing of being "guilty of everything they accuse the left wing of". Portions of some of the interviews which were released onto the internet to promote the book, particularly the Di Bona interview, caused the director and producer Lionel Chetwynd to resign from the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that claims based on such a disputed source should be presented with some balance, if they must be presented.128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I found a source for the popularity of the 18-49 demographic that IMO is more reliable and less biased. http://learcenter.org/pdf/Gabler18to49.pdf The author discusses a number of different theories, including competition from less competitive networks(Fox, WB, CW), the positive associations with a having a youth image, probability of brand conversion for a younger demographic, and less television watched overall by the demographic. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not only allow supposedly "neutral" sources but allows sources representing different views as long all sides are represented fairly. Your source corroborates Shapiro's claims regarding there being an absence of empirical evidence for the 18-49 group being particularly important as well as ABC starting this unfounded focus in order to get advertising revenue. I think we should add your source as giving alternative interpretations but it is no reason to exclude Shapiro's notable view. Also, his main alternative interpretation is that the executives focus on youth since they "fancy themselves as young and in the vanguard". Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The content violates undue. A view expressed in a single op-ed is not sufficient to justify inclusion. Removing. aprock (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The view is expressed primarily in the book which has been cited by many independent news sources so it is reliable. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Being cited does not make a source reliable, nor does it give it due weight. You need to come to a better understanding of policy. Given that you don't seem to grasp policy at all, engaging with you further here is not likely to be productive. Please return when you can actually cite relevant policy with understanding. aprock (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Incivility is not constructive. Both Shapiro and the book fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for presenting an opinion regarding this topic. Also note that IP above has presented a source that corroborates many of Shapiro's arguments although the interpretation is different. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we add a summary of Gabler's detailed analysis of the overemphasis of the young market and also his interpretations of causes. Then we also add Shapiro's different interpretations in order to achieve NPOV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are to avoid an issue with undue weight we would need at least one other source adhering to Shapiro's viewpoint. From the NPOV article:

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

IMO, a viewpoint held by one person is an extremely small minority. The criticism that 18-49 is over valued by TV networks, seems to be broader based. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Shapiro is a "prominent adherent". There are many positive reviews of his book so it is not "one person". Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to cite policy instead of arguing from your own personal viewpoint. aprock (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did. Benjamin Shapiro is a "prominent adherent" as per WP:NPOV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Using words that do not appear in an unnamed policy is precisely not citing policy. Adherent != adherents. Likewise calling someone a "prominent adherent", when they are not primarily known for espousing that view is quite the opposite of prominence. aprock (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It was obvious which policy I referred to since it was mentioned in the previous post. I never claimed that Benjamin Shapiro was multiple persons but he is one prominent person. I will look around for more. Obviously "prominent" refers to notability which Shapiro has. The claim that only persons "primarily known for espousing that view" should be allowed as sources for a view is of course incorrect. It is like arguing that only persons "primarily" known for their views regarding, say, cold fusion, should be allowed as sources on cold fusion (most likely only pro-cold fusion advocates) and not physicists famous for other things. Since we have multiple sources for that the 18-49 market is given too much weight I take it that there is no opposition to adding this? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Prominent + adherent != prominent adherent. One guy is not a minority view. In the language of WP:NPOV, one guy is an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, and not worthy of inclusion. aprock (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, I think that the recent edits are an improvement. I'm ready to call this issue closed, if you are. 128.97.68.15 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Amen. I am beginning to feel like Academica Orientalis is so pressed and being made to prove something like man landing on the moon and not being believed -- being asked to prove it somehow. I agree with the last poster. Let's be done with this issue already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardssr (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)