No, I would not. I make no argument about the persistent downturn. I was just trying to point out a design fail in the NYT's graphic.
They are trying to show two things: first, that NBC's ratings have fallen faster than the other major networks' in recent years, and that they have tended to trail the other networks in ratings. The second graph makes the second point well: it simply reports the difference in NBC's and the lead network's ratings over time, thus erasing any secular trend in the level of their ratings.
The first graph does not make the first point well at all.
After the introduction of cable, if a viewer stops watching one of the major networks, they are doing one of three things: watching non-network TV (i.e., cable), watching another network, or not watching TV. It's quite possible for viewers of the three major networks to switch to cable (or no TV at all) in equal proportions, which gives you periods in that graph like 1995-2000, when all three networks' ratings went down simultaneously. At the same time, the Big Three's total ratings fell, from roughly 11 million to roughly 9 million each. We wouldn't treat these drops as evidence that fewer people are watching TV, though, because we know that there's another line that the NYT doesn't show on the graph: the combined ratings of the other channels. (This is a Bad Thing.)
As you point out, there is no cable in the 1950s. Therefore if a viewer stops watching one of the major networks, they are doing one of two things: watching another network or not watching TV. You (reasonably) looked at the 1950s in that graph and saw a decline in network TV viewership. This is based, I presume, on the downward slope of NBC and CBS in those years. But notice that ABC is trending upward. There is a bit of a decline in the total viewers between 1955 and 1960, but most of the action appears to be viewers switching from NBC and CBS to ABC. That's why comparing the total viewership of the three networks, as I did above (~63M in 1955, about 58M in 1960), is important.
Notice also the 1960s, where the networks' ups and downs tend to mirror each other.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 02:16 am (UTC)They are trying to show two things: first, that NBC's ratings have fallen faster than the other major networks' in recent years, and that they have tended to trail the other networks in ratings. The second graph makes the second point well: it simply reports the difference in NBC's and the lead network's ratings over time, thus erasing any secular trend in the level of their ratings.
The first graph does not make the first point well at all.
After the introduction of cable, if a viewer stops watching one of the major networks, they are doing one of three things: watching non-network TV (i.e., cable), watching another network, or not watching TV. It's quite possible for viewers of the three major networks to switch to cable (or no TV at all) in equal proportions, which gives you periods in that graph like 1995-2000, when all three networks' ratings went down simultaneously. At the same time, the Big Three's total ratings fell, from roughly 11 million to roughly 9 million each. We wouldn't treat these drops as evidence that fewer people are watching TV, though, because we know that there's another line that the NYT doesn't show on the graph: the combined ratings of the other channels. (This is a Bad Thing.)
As you point out, there is no cable in the 1950s. Therefore if a viewer stops watching one of the major networks, they are doing one of two things: watching another network or not watching TV. You (reasonably) looked at the 1950s in that graph and saw a decline in network TV viewership. This is based, I presume, on the downward slope of NBC and CBS in those years. But notice that ABC is trending upward. There is a bit of a decline in the total viewers between 1955 and 1960, but most of the action appears to be viewers switching from NBC and CBS to ABC. That's why comparing the total viewership of the three networks, as I did above (~63M in 1955, about 58M in 1960), is important.
Notice also the 1960s, where the networks' ups and downs tend to mirror each other.