Can someone call this person and inform him that the ratings had actually increased this season over the previous 2 and that perhaps if he investigated a bit he would have found that out of the WB - Angel normally ranked around 5 of shows on the network. Reporters like this tick me off. Grrr Arrgh!!!!

[ edited by RavenU on 2004-02-16 23:52 ]

RavenU | February 17, 01:51 CET

Are they on freaking crack? Dwindling popularity???

kdeweb | February 17, 01:56 CET

I thought I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that this season Angel averaged 4.41 million viewers which is up about 1/2 million from last year. Plus, the reporter didn't even bother to check that Buffy lasted seven seasons and not the "six seasons" that he claimed.

mai | February 17, 01:57 CET

I wish there was a way to let Joss know that this series as well as Buffy, has been more useful in my work with teenagers then ever I imagined. As a psychotherapist it is a challenge to come up with metaphors for the trials of life and family to teens. This show has so followed the developmental tasks of older teens and young adults that it is a natural for dealing with hard to reach feelings. I weep for the loss, but cherish the experience of sharing Joss's vision of the world for young people in search of meaning and heroes.

How sad that the PTB at WB lost the vision.

calmlid | February 17, 02:00 CET

The NY post does not check their facts. It's obsurd. Also, I watched Access Hollywood today (I'm assuming it was taped today, because there was a story about the basketball game yesterday), and there wasn't a SINGLE mention about Angel.

kerribear | February 17, 02:05 CET

calmlid--I think that's really great. I think you should write him and tell him, I'm sure he could use hearing it right now. I believe this is the right address (but someone else might know better):

Joss Whedon
c/o Mutant Enemy Productions
PO Box 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90213

Yeah, the Post sucks. And right after Mai posted that some other rag reprinted it word for word. I know it might be meaningless in the grand scheme of things but I kind of want to demand a retraction.

marmoset | February 17, 02:10 CET

You know that most newspapers don't look for stories these days. In our current media era, so many stories are fed to journalists by publicists. What do you reckon to a theory that to muddy the waters over/or justify why the WB cancelled Angel certain facts given to journalists were 'unintentionally' misleading. If I was a major network that's how I'd be spinning it to tabloids who don't bother to researching the facts.

Trade papers like Variety and the Hollywood Reporter are more likely to know the score. Genre sites such as this one know the score. Unfortunately, tabloids who have a massive readership don't. And so their readers remain in the dark and will think "Ah failing show. No wonder it got cancelled".

Simon | February 17, 02:14 CET

Idiot reporter. Cretinous rag of a "newspaper."

Where's that seabreeze??

Calmlid, I think it's wonderful that Joss's shows have been so helpful in your work. I also urge you to write Joss and share your appreciation. Not knowing the man, I'll go out on a limb and surmise that he'd love it.

phlebotinin | February 17, 02:17 CET

Don't know much about ratings and what they mean and all, but I can do a little math. 132 out of 188 means Angel's generally doing better than about 30% of other prime time shows right? Which is about as good as Buffy was in its ratings prime when it was a 'cornerstone' for The WB that helped to establish it.
So yeah, his conclusion is fallacious.

forcorreo | February 17, 02:40 CET

Someone should 'send a letter to the editor.' :)

forcorreo | February 17, 02:45 CET

They also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the WB only reaches 30% of the households in the country compared to 70% of the top four networks. So duh the number is going to be lower.

RavenU | February 17, 02:47 CET

Ya know this doesn't even surprise me. It's one of our society's lesser known facts: normal newspapers suck balls. Almost every single time in my life when I was personally knowledgable on a topic, through hobby, work or whatever, I would always notice half the facts in a newspaper article on that topic would be wrong.

Every single time. This is just another one. And if anything it's getting worse. Such little things as 'fact-checking' are no longer in a journalist's job description.

Ratings were UP. Buffy lasted SEVEN seasons.....oy.... Let's not dwell on it. The guy's a misinformed ignoramus on the topic.

EdDantes | February 17, 02:51 CET

Oh Simon, I already knew that the NY Post was a piece of crap but I hadn't even thought of the WBs complicity in this. You're probably right--now I hate them even more.

And by the by, I'm wondering if anyone ever read that piece in the Herald-Tribune in January that interviewed Levin? I didn't think much of it at the time but this afternoon I remembered it and located it again. He and Gail Berman, though not speaking directly of Angel, make some very telling statements. Here's the link if anyone's interested: http://www.iht.com/articles/125791.html

marmoset | February 17, 03:08 CET

Actually, the Post is owned by New Corp, which is the parent company of Fox. Go figure.

Shroomy | February 17, 03:47 CET

<>

And Michael Powell of the FCC wants us to worry about Janet Jackson's breast? I'm more worried about deregulation of the media that allows for companies to use their newspapers and news outlets to further their outrageous logic.

angiebear | February 17, 06:27 CET

Thanks for the encouragement, I am sending my note on to Joss.

calmlid | February 17, 16:50 CET

calmlid, i'm sure you are familiar with this article written by a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist on using BtVS in psychotherapy. If not, you should definitely check it out.

TactGuy | February 17, 19:03 CET