Bill graciously re-posted the updated data to reflect the new date ranges. I don’t see any conspiracy here.

This stuff happens all the time.

It’s a non-issue.

Thanks again, Bill.

You looked at the data and chose to see a blip. I looked at the data and choose to see a 12% spike, that from the Primetime A25-54 ratings covering 14 days before and 14 days after the White House attack. Glenn Beck’s spike was even sharper, a +15.3% in the A25-54 demo.
You lefties come to somebody else’s site, throw a tantrum and don’t relent until your petty demand is met. You got your pound of flesh and are still whining?? What else do you want?? Blood?
As far as I know, the people who run this site are apolitical and not all that interested in cable news but for pertinent ratings.
Fact remains, Fox News DID enjoy a ratings spike since the White House declared “war”. I could run a 1-month before and after study and include data from 11/3.

I suspect the increase, if we look at any pre-election time from an off-season year, would be a normal blip due to the upcoming election.

But 2% isn’t a spike. 7% is barely noticeable. And the original data was skewed to make the ratings spike for FoxNews look much more significant.

Simple mistake without any malevolent intent? Probably. But then the reluctance on the part of the author to first, acknowledge his error, secondly, to repair his error, and lastly to make someone else create a new chart is really, really lame.

And for AppleStinx to claim that it’s “petty whining” when the data was skewed to benefit FoxNews in a deceptive way is pretty darn rich. And when one looks at the facts, that many, many groups used that skewed data to claim that FoxNews had seen a ratings spike that doesn’t actually exist, makes that error even more egregious, but somehow you think that it’s whining.

Do you know what the definition of whining is? It’s feeble, peevish complaining. Bringing facts to the table that point out factual errors is not feeble. Stuart didn’t act peevish at all – the people who acted teed off (with no justification, I might add) would be you and Bill Gorman!

That would make you the whiner, AppleStinx. And how like those on the right, using projection to claim that we on the left are behaving in a way that you yourself are actually exhibiting and we are not!

Thank you.

I’ll see about getting that chart to you tomorrow.

Stuart

Like I said, I am not going to generate another chart, but you are welcome to and I will add it to this post. In the meantime, I have edited the post above to include the 14 day comparison numbers.

I pulled the data. MMFA is correct. You need to correct your post.

The increase is not as much as you claimed.

I used the extra weekend data from your own site.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-saturday-sunday-october-24-25-2009/31634

I didn’t have the raw data for the other days, so I multiplied by the number of days in each range (pre=14, post=12), added the numbers for the extra days, then re-averaged using the new number of days: pre=14, post=14.

Original Data Posted by tvbythenumbers

Days –> 14 12
TV Pre Post

P2 1206 1312 9%
25-54 323 368 14%

Corrected using 10/24 and 10/25 data from tvbythenumbers

Days –> 14 14
TV Pre Post Pct

P2 1206 1240 3%
25-54 323 348 8%

Media Matters’ data
14 14
MMFA Pre Post

P2 1205 1231 2%
25-54 322 345 7%

I’m pulling now. I’ll let you know what I find. Regardless, one site’s off and I think we should see who.

BTW – I’m pulling data from from this site for just the extra days. I’ll try to x-reference to other sites, just to eliminate any further questions.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/cable-news-ratings-for-saturday-sunday-october-24-25-2009/31634

To save you time, FNC Primetime A25-54 went up 12% after the incident (14-calendar days before vs. 14-calendar days after).

The main object of the White House anger, Glenn Beck, his ratings went up 5.7% (P2+) and 15.3% (A25-54) (10-weekdays before vs 10-weekdays after)

———-

We can settle this once and for all using a method that would make the White House proud. Here it goes: count NEW viewers and viewers SAVED. FNC gains after the incident:
Total Day P2+: +21%
Total Day A25-54: +35%
Primetime P2+: +26%
Primetime A25-54: +46%

Carry on.

Ok. Now I see what you are saying. Sorry I didn’t understand you. You can calm down now.

But why do this? We want to compare the same data. Apples-to-apples.

What you are requesting is only extra information that is not necessary at this point. It may be interesting to see it, but not the basis of this discussion.

The purpose of my initial inquiry was to point out two outcomes, with one chart (MMFA) adding the weekend data on the “post” side to balance the “post” with the “pre”. When MMFA adds the extra weekend, we see different results that are not as much in Fox’s favor.

What MMFA has done is solid statistics, and makes more sense than to leave out the weekend in the “post” data, due to known viewer responses.

Leaving the weekend data out, especially with this now out in the open, and refusal to address it, looks like intentional bias.

It’s all about credibility.

Let me ask this — is it worth your time (or reputation) to actually correct your headline, or to correct the core inaccuracy of your story, since it is plainly exaggerated and, ultimately, false? Or at least add a note which points out that the statistics you used for teh comparative in the original post involved dropping off two days from the “post-ratings” that, had they been included (to make the comparison apples to apples) would have reduced the so-called rise in Fox’s average ratings for that period to the point where it was, in fact, statistically insignificant (less than 20,000 viewers on average nationwide)? Is accuracy and fairness not worth your time?

I have to say, I find your answer to be infuriating. Another example of journalistic laziness translating into a media frenzy (concerning Fox’s spike in ratings) predicated on a completely false analysis. I’m sure you would have called Florida for George W. Bush just like Fox did too.

AppleStinx, I’m not sure why you think there’s a disconnect. BOTH charts – the one here, AND the one at MMFA are TOTAL DAY VIEWER charts. We’re going in circles on this point.

This is what MMFA says about their chart,

“As I mentioned, the two weeks prior to the White House dispute cover the dates from September 28-October 11. The two weeks after that cover the dates from October 12-October 25. But the tabulation used to come up with the 9 percent ratings gain (i.e. 1.2 million vs. 1.3 million) only measured Fox News’ post-controversy ratings from October 12-October 23, which meant it was a 14-day comparison vs. a 12-day comparison. And which two days were left off the tabulation? Saturday, October 24 and Sunday, October 25. Traditionally, Saturday and Sunday, of course, are the two lowest-rated days of the cable news week.

What happened when you included October 24 and October 25 in the tabulation to make a true two-week-vs.-two-week comparison? Suddenly, that 9 percent gain in overall viewers evaporated into a barely-there 2 percent blip, while that 14 percent increase among viewers 25-54 shrunk to a much more modest 7 percent bump.”

Bill, if I can get the numbers, I’ll gladly run them myself. I just thought that since this is your chart, you may want to look into how the numbers come out when you run the same days. You still did not explain why you ran the days like you did. If you don’t understand how to view the numbers, then say so. You know, if you can’t get the data for the missing weekend in the “post”, just remove one of the weekends in the “pre” to see what happens.

I just thought in the interest of promoting your site’s objectivity, you may want to re-check your chart. MMFA does have a point – the number of days don’t match, and the days of the week don’t match in the pre and post analysis. The data does look cherry-picked.

If you want to wait for me to find the data and run the numbers myself, that’s your choice. In the meantime, let the readers come to their own conclusions about the chart and your site. It’s your site and your credibility, not mine.

AppleStinx, They ran full-day comparisons in the “pre” and “post”, and A25-54 ratings. So, I’m not sure what your beef is. Did you view the chart they posted?

Granted, the 2 days made some difference. However, the data used on this site and the ones Media Matters has a beef with were (I take their words for it) Total Day numbers. How come the writer at Media Matters didn’t look into Primetime A25-54 ratings? Perhaps these didn’t fit into his agenda??

You can get all the cable ratings data you need from tvnewser.com. Nielsen prevents us from making more than two weeks of tabular or list ratings data available on our site, but places no such restriction on them (go figure, but that’s another discussion entirely).

Media matters re-ran the numbers to include the extra weekend in the “post” data. They got slightly different results.

It appears that this site cherry-picked the data to make Fox’ ratings appear to jump higher than it really did.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200911030004#631281

In this type of statistic, you must match same time period to same time period, because viewers habits change, depending on the day of the week.

To “accidentally” leave out that last weekend data for the “post” period is highly suspicious.

So, I hope this site will re-run the numbers and re-post. Otherwise, this site cannot be considered a reliable source of information.

Sorry, but us statisticians are a skeptical lot.

The “pre” data has a total of 14 days, and includes 2 weekend periods.

The “post” data has a total of 12 days, and only includes 1 weekend period.

Please correct and re-post. Otherwise, you may be showing bias.

GOOD TIMES…

We have the same problem here in Canada, our federal taxpayer paid TV network is liberal, can’t even fake being objective. Still, our Conservative prime minister is never going to start a war against them. He’s just avoiding them

I am a black woman who has gladly stood with the teaparty fighters from the beginning. Not because of FOX but because I disagree with the current direction in which the government is going. I disagreed with Bush, too.

I think they were trying to intimidate the other networks, the so-called MSM (Main Stream Media) from picking up on reports originating from FOX.

The ACORN and WH Czar Resignations were stories largely ignored by the MSM while FOX kept the pressure on. I think the White House hopes to “de-legitimize” FOX so the other networks won’t pick up their stories.

I voted for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008 – I have mixed emotions about both men, neither one all that good IMO – but this “war with FOX” is not only dumb, it is a dangerous assault on our first amendment. I hope they will drop it and get back to the serious business of governing this country.

I occasional watch Fox News I guess im an idiot.

I totaly agree with your opinion, its all smoke and mirriors.

john oct 27 9:39 pm

Fox News Rocks, also I would gladly take Bush back over our present Idiot and Chief…IMO

But depressing Fox’s ratings was never the WH’s goal. Their goal … as they clearly stated it on Sunday news shows … was to prevent the other news agencies from following Fox’s lead. I think the New York Times op-ed “Tuning In Too Late” scared the WH as NYT was essentially saying that they’ll now keep track of what Fox is doing and not wait forever to cover stories that Fox has jumped upon. Here’s a link to that op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html

So the question is, has the WH succeeding in stopping Fox from leading other news agencies. If it has, their attack is a success. If they haven’t, it isn’t. Fox’s ratings are not part of this equation.

Bill, if you hear of any report that talks about the migration or lack thereof of news stories from Fox to other news agencies, that is something I’d like to hear about.

Okay, maybe not.

Thus when the Republicans were in power, Nancy Pelosi declared that protest was the highest form of patriotism, but when she was in power, protest, even peaceful protests of hundreds of thousands without a single arrest, was called dangerous and likely to lead to violence.

This only works if you the citizens, don’t care, can’t remember, or trust those whose trust should never be assumed.