I dont think I'm resposible for "tenor" but the fact is that the Post stated that PBS uses different methods than Nielsen. I don't have an opinion on whether or not PBS's numbers should be shown, but I do know that they should not be added to Nielsen's numbers. They don't use the same methods.
I've already addressed this: "I conceed it would have been better of me to use a link that fully did the same, but my point was not the story itself, it was Fox's obscuring of it; that even that very rudimentary story gave an effort to include all the pertinent information while Fox didn't."
My point is that Fox didn't obscure anything. PBS's less accurate estimate is about as "pertinent" as how many contstruction workers in the Scranton area watched it via portable television through analog signal. For example, a 4 - day program that PBS called "successful" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/ar...on/17mcgr.html
) was watched by about 7.3 million people. This was their most successful program in 10 years, and it's viewers were not even close to FOX's viewers for the RNC, which had about 2 million more viewers. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_124533.html
PBS claims it had 4 million viewers during the DNC (which is less than 50% of FOX's viewers during the RNC), on average its primetime shows received a 1.7 primetime Neilsen rating (http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_corp_audience.html
) during 2004-2005. The average for stations like FOX and ABC is about 3.0 (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/08/r...ts_fox_abc.php
). This is more than 175% of PBS viewers for 2004-2005, and their ratings have since dropped dramatically.
Yes I am aware of that. If the San Francisco chronicle wants to take information from the AP then they can do that (as they did), and it's not surprising that they would change/condense the information in a misleading way.
You're flat out wrong that all the major news networks don't use Nielsen ratings (they do-http://www.tvweek.com/ratings/). They subscribe to them every week, as they are the most respected ratings for television.
The part in bold is really the main argument. It shows that they got the numbers 3.5 and 4 million from using just a few small samples in big cities. If you've read how ratings are normally done (I'm assuming you don't read everything that you post because of a lot missing information/wrong information that you write) you would see that this is NOT the widely accepted procedure.
Well in this case I certainly hope people don't get their information from you, since it includes good data mixed in with bad data. That's not how I chose to get my news. I don't ONLY watch FOX news, and I never said that I did, but it seems like it's necessary when all the other stations are so blatantly biased, PBS being the worst.