Any article that doesn't include streaming numbers is shoddy journalism.
sarcasim
the thing is there is 10 of them but they say that there is 1000 times more all with IQs over 100
And THAT, sir, will be your article of sarcasim for this quarter.
Good day.
It's not sarcasm. Comparison of Nielsen ratings over decades would be a fine comparison if that was the only manner in which people continued to consume media. The truth is more people are now watching through streaming services. I watched the state of the union on youtube. Were those numbers included in their measurement before categorically stating that Trump was incorrect? I doubt that it was the highest watched state of the union ever, mostly because there was a strong likelihood that Trump haters would never actually watch it, but to state absolutely that it wasn't the most watched based on a single source of consumption is simply bad journalism.
not that i disagree, but seems like it would be hard to aggregate all that data into something accurate.
i was watching on twitter, under the moments section, but it changed the stream source 3 separate times. so would i count as a viewer on 3 different sources?
would be interesting numbers to see though, streaming vs tv
I enjoy ascotiias leap from "russia tried to influence the election" to "russia installed their candidate"
Incredible and inconceivable.
I'd be interested to hear how I ended up in that group. Then we can unravel the convoluted thought process that developed this flawed jewel.
Oh and can you tell me how a country like Russia with a smaller GDP than Canukistan's is a threat to the US? At this point I'm thinking you're a high functioning retard. I look forward to your response and in proving me wrong.
Perhaps this twisted gem of distorted logic can prove illuminating to answering the question above. Let's hope so.
I haven't watched live tv since....the Superbowl last year?
no wait game of thrones
but neilsen ratings are still relevant I'm sure...