knight rider online

There's an article on Yahoo! that suggests low rated tv shows might get some relief after the election is over- and "knight Rider" is mentioned specifically by name. Call me a little dense, but how does all this political drama affecct what shows people watch?

I imagine they are getting that from this THR article. They suggest people will be looking for a diversion once the election is over. I imagine all the commercials you see while watching the results on NBC can't hurt either.

Could the big winner on Election Day be "Knight Rider"?

With the race for the Oval Office considered the most exciting and dramatic narrative this fall, struggling broadcast TV shows might get some ratings relief once election fever subsides.

It's nice that the Hollywood Reporter is being so optimistic for the show. It will get more people tuning in.

"I definitely think new shows will have some benefit, and the race ending will free up some eyeballs," one network executive said. "They don't carry the baggage that some of the slow-starting shows from this fall carry."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 242eb117ac

well, it sure "Affected" my spelling...

Don't blame him anymore, let the poor guy rest. He already lost the election.

No one factor is to blame. Television ratings are down in general, long before the election was an issue. If you read about how many viewers shows were getting a decade ago, the numbers have decreased significantly. I just read that the last episode of "X-Files" had roughly 13 million viewers - that would be considered a smash hit nowadays, but not back then. I would definitely say the advent of technologies such as DVR's, Tivo (which isn't tracked by all rating systems) and streaming media online has contributed to less people watching a show as soon as it airs.

BlueChaos wrote:Don't blame him anymore, let the poor guy rest. He already lost the election.

I was simply looking for a catchy title, and it was either this, or "The Drama with Obama."

Ah, I suggest you must be a Dems supporter then

The title is quite fitting with the Milli Vanilli song "Blame it on the Rain" - nice work!

I really wasn't trying that hard, or I would've found a way to rhyme it with "Knight Rider." What I was trying to do was stimulate an interesting discussion about how people's viewing habits may be influenced by the environment, political or otherwise.

neps wrote:The title is quite fitting with the Milli Vanilli song "Blame it on the Rain" - nice work!

If he had won, a bunch of bitches would have started the hate Mccain movement like they did with Bush. Now get a couple of mops and start dancing.

goldbug wrote:No one factor is to blame. Television ratings are down in general, long before the election was an issue. If you read about how many viewers shows were getting a decade ago, the numbers have decreased significantly. I just read that the last episode of "X-Files" had roughly 13 million viewers - that would be considered a smash hit nowadays, but not back then. I would definitely say the advent of technologies such as DVR's, Tivo (which isn't tracked by all rating systems) and streaming media online has contributed to less people watching a show as soon as it airs.

I share that sentiment, tv sucks severely thats why if tv gets worse I'm gonna cut it off permanently.

Sorry but I have to say something about the lack of viewers for TV nowdays, the reason is very simple, there are more channels now than there were when x-files was about and due to people having a diverse view on what they do and do not like, the viewers are spread more due to difference in interest. Its not because TV is worse than it was. Seriously, if u go back and watch x-files, it wasnt always that great.

Slayer, that is what I was thinking. wWhen tv's now have sooo many channels (like 1000),with digital cable, how can you compare?

It's a bunch of reality tv *?$# now, a handful of good shows at best besides that. CSI style shows get boring after a while.

Reminds me of a quote I heard along time ago.
"In the future, there will be hundreds of tv channels......but nothing to watch."

My_Friend_KITT wrote:Reminds me of a quote I heard along time ago.
"In the future, there will be hundreds of tv channels......but nothing to watch."

Biggest form of irony huh.

I generally hate TV as well. If it weren't for Knight Rider I wouldn't watch. I'm glad for the internet where I can still watch old shows. And shows I can't get because I can't afford cable. At least then I can buy the episodes on iTunes or Amazon.com (like BSG).

I was debating getting just a USB HDTV tuner and antenna for my laptop and getting rid of my TV set altogether for the little I watch it. But when KR came back on, I got one of those DTV converter boxes for free (with the gov. $40 coupon) and my TV set is still in use. But still, I watch more on my laptop than on the TV anyway.

KnightRiderKR,

Racist and hateful remarks are completely unacceptable on this forum. I was already forced to delete your rather sterotypical comment towards the Asian members of this community yesterday, and now I’ve been forced to delete your racially motivated comment towards Barrack Obama as well. That’s two strikes, and by referring to the people who voted for him to become the 44th President of the United States as bitches, you’ve now incurred your third.

As a member of this community, you agreed to the rules that we have in place, and given that you have failed to adhere to them, your posting privileges have now been temporarily suspended.

When you return next week, I hope that you will have learned to keep such remarks to yourself.

Matt

Getting back on topic and rereading some posts, I agree with Sue about wanting diversion. The election was quite intense for everyone on both sides. And having a feeling of "back to normal" is always a nice and welcome relief. Also while in my state there weren't as many political ads as other states, I think because of political ads leading up to Election Day, some people would feel better just not watching TV so that they don't get their favorite show interrupted by a political ad they might vehemently disagree with (and thus ruining a perfectly fun evening). I can understand that rationale as well. So thus lower viewer ratings.

As for Knight Rider "especially", I don't quite get that either, but maybe they were referring to KR being postponed when Obama aired his presentation? Or maybe it was a complement that people will want to watch Knight Rider because it's a great show and helps one forget about the goings on in the world (good or bad) for a little while, provides some escapism? Or maybe both.

There's now the holidays and football, basketball, hockey. So there's always something going on though that can get viewers to watch something else (or decide not to watch anything at all). I think KR is doing pretty good actually and hope that the ratings grow. I'm looking forward to tonight's episode.

goldbug wrote: I just read that the last episode of "X-Files" had roughly 13 million viewers - that would be
considered a smash hit nowadays, but not back then. I would definitely say the advent of
technologies such as DVR's, Tivo (which isn't tracked by all rating systems) and streaming
media online has contributed to less people watching a show as soon as it airs.

Very true. One other aspect that has contributed to the general decline in TV audience ratings
for mainstream TV channels/networks, especially here in the UK, is multi-channel television,
especially now we can choose from the hundreds of digital satellite channels on Sky, or a
similar number of digital cable channels on Virgin Media. I'm sure you have a similar type
of situation with the likes of DirecTV and Comcast over in the States.

For those in the UK, that don't want (or can't afford) to subscribe to satellite/cable services,
we also have the digital terrestrial TV service known as Freeview, with about 40+ channels.
Does the US have anything similar to Freeview, or are you all going to have to subscribe
to satellite/cable services when your analog TV signals are switched off next year?

There's no freeview that has 40+ channels here. We do have DTV (Digital TV) and there was (or maybe still is?) a government program where you get a $40 card to get a converter box so you can keep your existing analog TV set. I got my converter box earlier this year. I guess it depends on your area how many DTV stations there are. Here there are oh, at least 12 or so. Our local PBS has 4 channels. Three major network ones have at least two each. There are others too for Fox, etc. One or more each. But that's just my area. It might vary per area or station what they are broadcasting.

Slayer2004 wrote:Sorry but I have to say something about the lack of viewers for TV nowdays, the reason is very simple, there are more channels now than there were when x-files was about and due to people having a diverse view on what they do and do not like, the viewers are spread more due to difference in interest. Its not because TV is worse than it was. Seriously, if u go back and watch x-files, it wasnt always that great.

I never implied that TV was "worse" or "better" now than before. I was merely trying to offer reasons as to why shows don't get as high numbers initially as they used to, and I think a lot has to do with technologies that exist today that didn't exist in most homes ten years ago. I also agree that with hundreds of channels, people can spread their viewing out a lot more.

I voted for none of the above as for Montgomery Brewster would have wanted aka Ralph Nader