Mark Cushman and Nielsen Ratings

[Panem et circenses]

So I have been reading through 'These are the Voyages', as well as various threads here, and have noticed a few people being critical of Mark Cushman's understanding of the Nielsen Ratings. Since all of my understanding comes from Wikipedia, I wondered what everyone's specific criticism of his understanding of the Nielsen Ratings was? And whether people could recommend any good books on Nielsen (especially in the 60s)?

 

[Indysolo]

TrekBBS member @Harvey runs Star Trek Fact Check and he wrote this article explaining point for point why Cushman's rating analysis is flawed.

Neil

 

[Panem et circenses]

Wonderful, this is excellent and very helpful. I will read it all once I get home from work and can give it my full attention.

Since people seem to have a low opinion of his accuracy, what would you recommend as another in-depth examination of the episodes, but that is more factually accurate? Or does it not exist yet? (I'm sure David Gerrold's Trouble with Tribbles book is good for that episode, but I'm looking to explore all of them if possible).

 

[Harvey]

Since people seem to have a low opinion of his accuracy, what would you recommend as another in-depth examination of the episodes, but that is more factually accurate? Or does it not exist yet? (I'm sure David Gerrold's Trouble with Tribbles book is good for that episode, but I'm looking to explore all of them if possible).

Such a book, sadly, does not exist. I fear that Cushman and Osborn have cornered the market on that front, and done so with a book that is totally unreliable.

Inside Star Trek: The Real Story is a great place to start, although it is not without a number of factual errors, and it is not an episode-by-episode account of the series. The Making of Star Trek is also useful, although it is heavily slanted in Roddenberry's favor in its account, and is also the source for many falsehoods that have become part of the mythology of Star Trek.

This article is also pretty great: http://www.tvobscurities.com/articles/star_trek_look/

If you're ever in southern California, I recommend making an appointment to see the Gene Roddenberry Star Trek television series collection at UCLA (you can only check out five boxes at a time, and have to view them in a secure reading room, but that's more than enough reading material for a day). It's by far the best historical resource for those interested in the production of the series.

 

[Panem et circenses]

I will check out both of those as well. I wonder, what do you think to Cushman's use of quotes from memos? Would you class them as reliable? I wouldn't think he would mis-quote memos.

I will check out that article as well.

Sadly, I am stuck over in the UK. If I had the time and money I would love to visit each of the stores of papers (Roddenberry's, Coon's, etc.) and really look into the stuff. Maybe I will plan for an exceptionally exciting holiday stuck in libraries...

 

[Indysolo]

I will check out both of those as well. I wonder, what do you think to Cushman's use of quotes from memos? Would you class them as reliable? I wouldn't think he would mis-quote memos.

He misquotes memos. I was just interviewed for this podcast and got quite angry when the host quoted from Cushman's book, so I gave him a copy of the actual memo to read. If you listen and compare it to what's reported in the book, you'll realize the book isn't right.

Neil

 

[Wmurch]

Having read Cushman's book on TOS season one, I'm working my way through Season 2 book. I'm new to this site - are we saying that Cushman's books are completely wrong, partially wrong, inadvertently wrong, slightly off? Are we talking about flat out making stuff up? I was under the assumption that this was about as good as history as we have thus far.

 

[shatastrophic]

Yeah, I was of the same notion. I was enjoying the read of season 2 until I stumbled across this thread...I too am curious, what is the verdict?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Numerous serious problems with Cushman's books on TOS have been discussed at length in various threads on this board. Just make the obvious searches, and I'm sure you'll find them.

 

[shatastrophic]

No need to, you answered for me by starting out with "Numerous serious problems...". Yikes!

 

[Ssosmcin]

The sad part is that it is doubtful anyone else will do a book series of this type for the series again, so we're stuck with all new misinformation that was created to replace old misinformation. Even sadder is that he's now the Go-To Guy for this type of thing. So those books I always wanted to read about the making of the Irwin Allen shows, like Lost in Space and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea? Yup, he's the guy writing them.

So who the hell knows if any of these books should be classified as non-fiction? And die-hard fans of those shows (many are borderline freaks in my experience) will take every word as gospel.

 

[Panem et circenses]

He misquotes memos. I was just interviewed for this podcast and got quite angry when the host quoted from Cushman's book, so I gave him a copy of the actual memo to read. If you listen and compare it to what's reported in the book, you'll realize the book isn't right.

Neil

This is so unbelievably disappointing. I know they weren't meant to be academic books in any way, but mis-quoting your source material is just so against what writing history is about. And I would class these books at an attempt at definitive history.

I will do a thorough search of this forum when I have the time, try and see what is salvageable from the book and try not to repeat any of it here.

But one thing I do want to know is has anyone asked Cushman why? Has he responded to this criticism in any way? Or is he just ignoring it? He must have known anyone would have access to the memos and material, from Roddenberry's or Coon's stored papers for example, and they could check his accuracy.

And thanks for all the information, it has been really enlightening.

 

[Indysolo]

But one thing I do want to know is has anyone asked Cushman why? Has he responded to this criticism in any way? Or is he just ignoring it? He must have known anyone would have access to the memos and material, from Roddenberry's or Coon's stored papers for example, and they could check his accuracy.

Here is my one and only correspondence with Mr. Cushman. These are screen grabs and photos from his book and my discussion on facebook with him about this photo. You'll quickly learn what kind of researcher he is.

Neil

 

[Harvey]

But one thing I do want to know is has anyone asked Cushman why? Has he responded to this criticism in any way? Or is he just ignoring it? He must have known anyone would have access to the memos and material, from Roddenberry's or Coon's stored papers for example, and they could check his accuracy.

Quite frankly, every interview I've read or heard with Mr. Cushman has fawned over the books he's written (although Susan Osborn is also credited as an author, I don't believe she's ever been interviewed about the project). I don't think I've ever seen anyone directly challenge him over any of his claims. He's certainly never commented about my research debunking many of his claims.

Even sites like 1701News or podcasts like the G&T Show have given Mr. Cushman a free pass when they've interviewed him or reviewed his work, which has always surprised me, considering their treatment of Axanar (it should really come as no surprise to learn that Mr. Cushman is linked to that controversial fan production). Then again, Mr. Cushman has thus far avoided a lawsuit from Paramount or CBS. You would have to ask @Michael Hinman or @jespah about that, though.

 

[jespah]

Thank you for tagging me. I'll have to ask - I know the show talked to Mr. Cushman in, gosh, 2014? 2015?

 

[Harvey]

Thank you for tagging me. I'll have to ask - I know the show talked to Mr. Cushman in, gosh, 2014? 2015?

2014 and 2015.

http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-stlv-2014-coverage-marc-cushman-susan-osborn/
http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-supplemental-log-marc-cushman-returns/

And it looks like I was mistaken. Osborn is interviewed in the earlier episode.

 

[Indysolo]

Even sites like 1701News or podcasts like the G&T Show have given Mr. Cushman a free pass when they've interviewed him or reviewed his work, which has always surprised me, considering their treatment of Axanar (it should really come as no surprise to learn that Mr. Cushman is linked to that controversial fan production). Then again, Mr. Cushman has thus far avoided a lawsuit from Paramount or CBS. You would have to ask @Michael Hinman or @jespah about that, though.

Because people want to believe.

Neil

 

[Panem et circenses]

Here is my one and only correspondence with Mr. Cushman. These are screen grabs and photos from his book and my discussion on facebook with him about this photo. You'll quickly learn what kind of researcher he is.

Neil

Reading through the comments he is making it seems like he doesn't understand the internet very well, and that people will follow up on what he is printing in a detailed manner. He seems sightly confused that you can use the internet as a valuable research resource.

It is interesting that he updated the book with the new information (yet did not check that it was indeed a piece of fan-art and remove it completely). I wonder if someone actually pointed out to him some of the inaccuracies, such as those in @Harvey's blog, that he might actually be inclined to include them in the next printing? It wouldn't seem so from that correspondence, but one could hope he might change his mind.

It's still just very disappointing. I will finish the books, but this has certainly tarnished my reading of them and extending the (already long) list of books I will be buying (to make sure I get as much of a broad source base as possible).

 

[jespah]

2014 and 2015.

http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-stlv-2014-coverage-marc-cushman-susan-osborn/
http://www.gandtshow.com/g-t-show-supplemental-log-marc-cushman-returns/

And it looks like I was mistaken. Osborn is interviewed in the earlier episode.

I can ask. Both interviews are before my full time with the show.

 

[Harvey]

It is interesting that he updated the book with the new information (yet did not check that it was indeed a piece of fan-art and remove it completely). I wonder if someone actually pointed out to him some of the inaccuracies, such as those in @Harvey's blog, that he might actually be inclined to include them in the next printing? It wouldn't seem so from that correspondence, but one could hope he might change his mind.

I doubt it. Someone posted my piece about the ratings to the These Are The Voyages Facebook page. The official response?

Jacobs/Brown licensed the AC Nielsen ratings survey reports for every Star Trek episode aired on NBC. This information is published in the These Are the Voyages books, taken directly from the Nielsen reports. Other ratings data was taken from Arbitronand TvQ survey reports published in Variety and other trade magazines from the 1960s. The source is always cited.

The ratings services do not always agree. It sometimes seemed that even Nielsen didn't agree with itself, but this is only because Nielsen would routinely conduct several different surveys for any given week, including Trendex Overnight reports, Regional reports, 15-City reports, 30-City Reports, and National reports.

The data from any given report published in the These Are the Voyages books will differ from other reports from the same time period. When possible, data from more than one ratings report was included for various episodes.

In other words, a wordy non-answer. And, one in which the author is still confused about the difference between Nielsen and Trendex. Trendex was a different company than Nielsen!