Scientology and the Aftermath The Ranches Continues Downhill Slide for Viewers

Scientology and the Aftermath The Ranches

“The Ranches” was the least watched episode of all for Scientology and the Aftermath

Last night’s episode of Scientology and the Aftermath The Ranches featured two more heartbreaking case studies of Scientology abuse.

But it had no information in it that law enforcement can use to bring criminal charges to David Miscavige or anyone in the Church of Scientology.

It exposed important stories of abuse to a wider TV audience from a kid’s ranch that closed 15 years ago, first reported on the Internet around 10 years ago.

It was also the least-watched episode in both seasons of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath, with 1.226 million viewers.

The viewership of the show is now half of what the 1st episode of the 1st season pulled.

, ,

Sort by:   newest | oldest
Eileen
Guest

Alanzo, can you rerun these statistics, removing the premiere, the “specials”, and the reruns? That will give us an accurate view of the actual changes in viewership. I think your mean may shift quite a bit.

Eileen
Guest

When considering how to analyze data points usually discussion happens in advance. The first question is “what are we interested in measuring”? I am assuming you are interested in knowing regular base audience interest in this series, and change over time.
Articulating these questions is important to prevent data from being deliberately “skewed” to fit a predetermined bias. (Busted!).
In looking at this data set, the first point (premiere) is clearly an outlier, and needs to be considered for inclusion since it will skew the data set positively. There are a couple of ways to handle this. One is to argue (in advance) that premieres are likely to not be representative of regular viewership and decide to not include the first episode. Another way (if you want to leave out the premiere) is to also remove the lowest score (the opposite outlier).
Then you have to justify the inclusion of each data point, because there are so few points. I would think that reruns and specials would not be good indicators of base viewership, and remove those. I would suggest using scheduled first runs of episodes to try to control for noise created when episodes are dropped into the schedule. In any event, it is important to consider the data points individually. The reason for this is that there are too few data points, so any one observation will inevitably skew the results, and result in an inaccurate estimation of actual regular viewers.
A number of other considerations, but this gives an idea about how a data set would be handled in reality.
Or you could just throw out a trend line, and move the data points around until you find one you like! Are you studying anthropology again Alanzo?

Annoyed
Guest

Other than trying to make something out of nothing why not discuss the abuses these kids endured? The AL of old would thoroughly dissect Hubbard’s words and ‘tech’ to try and help people understand how and why scientologists justify this B.S.
Also if you are going to try and make ratings of Aftermath an issue, at least take the time to do it correctly. Ratings are done a bit different because off dvr’s. Final numbers are calculated days, maybe even up to a week later, because we watch TV differently now.

Eileen
Guest

Alanzo is right, he is not trying to look at ratings, or even total viewership. He is looking at “live” views. Perfectly legitimate.
However, not all discrete data points are created the same. Alanzo needs to decide whether a “special” is a data point, whether a rerun is a data point. I would argue that they are not.
The goal is to approximate “truth” rather than argue an ideology. Statistics can certainly be used to lie, but it can also be used to reveal (some of) the truth.

Richard
Guest

I was going to add that I recall a college professor saying all statistics can be made to lie but Eileen beat me to it – shucks

Someone on Mike’s blog said something to the effect that “Every episode (the abuse) gets worse and worse.” I think at some point a lot of people saw enough and tune out. When and if a Season 3 occurs, maybe bringing the Jehovah Witnesses and other religions and cults into the mix might stir up interest.

Six more episodes to go – time for more popcorn.

Eileen
Guest

The statistics can be used to lie comment cannot be made too often, glad you added it!

Gib
Guest

screw the stats and viewership by whatever metric in present time.

I didn’t see the 2009 Village Voice Truth Rundown Series until 2012. Same with the 2008 Jason Beghe 2 hour interview by Mark Bunker.

Now that’s a good stat.

Gib
Guest

edit to add:

I didn’t even know until 2014/15 or so that Heinlein questioned every step of Dianetics before it’s release in 1950. Heinlein questioned Campbell’s involvement and the so called “release” and “clear” via several personal letters, and Campbell finally admitted Hubbard had it wrong. LOL

I’ve only mentioned several times the Heinlein/Campbell letters of 1949/1950.

It’s not that I think Heinlein is some guru, I’ver never read any of his books, but the guy did use some critical thinking & scientific method skills and even called out Campbell and Hubbard for rhetoric to promote their new found discovery of Dianetics, LOL

Richard
Guest

Since Season 1 of Aftermath won an Emmy it might still be available for viewing somewhere 5 years from now. People could then get restimulated by watching things that happened 20 years ago rather than 15 years ago.

The current push by the CoS seems to be promoting its supposed good works rather than benefits from the subject. In 5 years it might be just a tiny group of fundamentalists. The internet killed Scientology.

I still regard Scientology as a learning experience. It was a pretty good if faulty introduction to philosophy, psychology and occultism.

Richard
Guest

I know Alanzo likes everyone to Stay on Topic, but with all the different “camps” in Scientology I think this parable by Kahlil Gibran applies.

*Knowledge and Half-Knowledge*

Four frogs sat upon a log that lay floating on the edge of a river. Suddenly the log was caught by the current and swept slowly down the stream. The frogs were delighted and absorbed, for never before had they sailed.

At length the first frog spoke, and said, “This is indeed a most marvelous log. It moves as if alive. No such log was ever known before.”

Then the second frog spoke, and said, “Nay, my friend, the log is like other logs, and does not move. It is the river, that is walking to the sea, and carries us and the log with it.”

And the third frog spoke, and said, “It is neither the log nor the river that moves. The moving is in our thinking. For without thought nothing moves.”

And the three frogs began to wrangle about what was really moving. The quarrel grew hotter and louder, but they could not agree.

Then they turned to the fourth frog, who up to this time had been listening attentively but holding his peace, and they asked his opinion.

And the fourth frog said, “Each of you is right, and none of you is wrong. The moving is in the log and the water and our thinking also.”

And the three frogs became very angry, for none of them was willing to admit that his was not the whole truth, and that the other two were not totally wrong.

Then the strange thing happened. The three frogs got together and pushed the fourth frog off the log into the river.

* * *

Eileen
Guest

LOL

Gib
Guest

reminds me of Hubbard’s Black Panther Mechanism – attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb.

There is a sixth, make friends with the black panther

Created by Alanzo

Clicky