Going back to the original topic of the thread, which is ratings, we know in statistics that smaller sample sizes lead to more volatile numbers and shifts that do not correspond to explanations. And as the audiences for late night shows shrink, the ratings might change due to long term trends, short term blips, or maybe the change in ratings between Colbert and Kimmel falls within the margin of error and Colbert actually has not fallen behind. NPR did a business story once where they went to Wall Street area bars after the work day and talked to people in the financial sector. They noted what the Dow did that day and asked what caused that particular rise or fall (I forget which). The interviewees gave a whole range of explanations. Taken together the explanations made no sense and were sometimes contradictory.
I get a similar feeling about this story. With smaller audiences the ratings might move around a lot more. We should really look for long term trends before trying to pontificate about what any host needs to do. I only watch Colbert once a week, maybe twice so I don't feel entitled to make grand pronouncements. But when I do and I'm not falling asleep during the show I turn to Seth Meyers afterward to hear his opening bit. From what I've seen Meyers gives a much sharper political commentary than Colbert. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
