<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Samantha Who? Again Tops New Shows, Oct 29-Nov 4</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645</link>
	<description>Nielsen TV Show Ratings, Data and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:14:54 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joe Bua</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-1070</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Bua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-1070</guid>
		<description>C&#039;mon, Sam Who? is utterly charming.

I love this show.

http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/11/charmed-out-of-.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>C&#8217;mon, Sam Who? is utterly charming.</p>
<p>I love this show.</p>
<p><a href="http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/11/charmed-out-of-.html" rel="nofollow">http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/11/charmed-out-of-.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Bua</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20691</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Bua</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20691</guid>
		<description>C&#039;mon, Sam Who? is utterly charming.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I love this show.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/11/charmed-out-of-.html&quot;&gt;http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junki...&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>C&#39;mon, Sam Who? is utterly charming.</p>
<p>I love this show.</p>
<p><a href="http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junkie_a_blog_f/2007/11/charmed-out-of-.html"></a><a href="http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junki.." rel="nofollow">http://iamatvjunkie.typepad.com/i_am_a_tv_junki..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rena Moretti</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-1061</link>
		<dc:creator>Rena Moretti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-1061</guid>
		<description>Put Samantha in any slot without a huge lead-in and it wold be doing poorly.  Actually, it&#039;s doing rather poorly given its lead-in.

Of all those shows, Women&#039;s Murder Club is the only good one, which help explain that it&#039;s not dropping like a stone like most everything else.

Dirty Sexy Money and Big Bang Theory might survive because in a season of bombs, mediocre show with mediocre ratings almost look good.

NBC has made itself a joke and Jeff Zucker should fire everyone (including himself) who was responsible for this awful mess.

He&#039;s probably banking on the strike to kill off all his new shows without any acknowledgment of how bad they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Put Samantha in any slot without a huge lead-in and it wold be doing poorly.  Actually, it&#8217;s doing rather poorly given its lead-in.</p>
<p>Of all those shows, Women&#8217;s Murder Club is the only good one, which help explain that it&#8217;s not dropping like a stone like most everything else.</p>
<p>Dirty Sexy Money and Big Bang Theory might survive because in a season of bombs, mediocre show with mediocre ratings almost look good.</p>
<p>NBC has made itself a joke and Jeff Zucker should fire everyone (including himself) who was responsible for this awful mess.</p>
<p>He&#8217;s probably banking on the strike to kill off all his new shows without any acknowledgment of how bad they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rena Moretti</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20690</link>
		<dc:creator>Rena Moretti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20690</guid>
		<description>Put Samantha in any slot without a huge lead-in and it wold be doing poorly.  Actually, it&#039;s doing rather poorly given its lead-in.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of all those shows, Women&#039;s Murder Club is the only good one, which help explain that it&#039;s not dropping like a stone like most everything else.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Dirty Sexy Money and Big Bang Theory might survive because in a season of bombs, mediocre show with mediocre ratings almost look good.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;NBC has made itself a joke and Jeff Zucker should fire everyone (including himself) who was responsible for this awful mess.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;He&#039;s probably banking on the strike to kill off all his new shows without any acknowledgment of how bad they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Put Samantha in any slot without a huge lead-in and it wold be doing poorly.  Actually, it&#39;s doing rather poorly given its lead-in.</p>
<p>Of all those shows, Women&#39;s Murder Club is the only good one, which help explain that it&#39;s not dropping like a stone like most everything else.</p>
<p>Dirty Sexy Money and Big Bang Theory might survive because in a season of bombs, mediocre show with mediocre ratings almost look good.</p>
<p>NBC has made itself a joke and Jeff Zucker should fire everyone (including himself) who was responsible for this awful mess.</p>
<p>He&#39;s probably banking on the strike to kill off all his new shows without any acknowledgment of how bad they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-981</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-981</guid>
		<description>[Off] means the show didn&#039;t air that week.

Of the 6 new shows that didn&#039;t make the top 20, 4 had zero viewers since they didn&#039;t air. The 2 CW shows aired with fewer viewers than Gossip Girl.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Off] means the show didn&#8217;t air that week.</p>
<p>Of the 6 new shows that didn&#8217;t make the top 20, 4 had zero viewers since they didn&#8217;t air. The 2 CW shows aired with fewer viewers than Gossip Girl.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20689</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20689</guid>
		<description>[Off] means the show didn&#039;t air that week.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of the 6 new shows that didn&#039;t make the top 20, 4 had zero viewers since they didn&#039;t air. The 2 CW shows aired with fewer viewers than Gossip Girl.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[Off] means the show didn&#39;t air that week.</p>
<p>Of the 6 new shows that didn&#39;t make the top 20, 4 had zero viewers since they didn&#39;t air. The 2 CW shows aired with fewer viewers than Gossip Girl.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chandra</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-963</link>
		<dc:creator>Chandra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-963</guid>
		<description>What does &quot;[Off]&quot; mean in the list of shows at the bottom that didn&#039;t make the Top 20?  Most have it, but a couple, both CW shows, don&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does &#8220;[Off]&#8221; mean in the list of shows at the bottom that didn&#8217;t make the Top 20?  Most have it, but a couple, both CW shows, don&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chandra</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20688</link>
		<dc:creator>Chandra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20688</guid>
		<description>What does &quot;[Off]&quot; mean in the list of shows at the bottom that didn&#039;t make the Top 20?  Most have it, but a couple, both CW shows, don&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does &#8220;[Off]&#8221; mean in the list of shows at the bottom that didn&#39;t make the Top 20?  Most have it, but a couple, both CW shows, don&#39;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-958</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-958</guid>
		<description>Angela, that&#039;s indeed the $64,000 question.

Samatha owes a lot to Dancing&#039;s 21.4m average audience on 10/29.

However, for 18-34s, Dancing had 2.299m avg. viewers and Samantha had 2.359m. So *more* younger viewers tuned in for Samantha. That&#039;s likely significant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Angela, that&#8217;s indeed the $64,000 question.</p>
<p>Samatha owes a lot to Dancing&#8217;s 21.4m average audience on 10/29.</p>
<p>However, for 18-34s, Dancing had 2.299m avg. viewers and Samantha had 2.359m. So *more* younger viewers tuned in for Samantha. That&#8217;s likely significant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20687</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20687</guid>
		<description>Angela, that&#039;s indeed the $64,000 question.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Samatha owes a lot to Dancing&#039;s 21.4m average audience on 10/29.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, for 18-34s, Dancing had 2.299m avg. viewers and Samantha had 2.359m. So *more* younger viewers tuned in for Samantha. That&#039;s likely significant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Angela, that&#39;s indeed the $64,000 question.</p>
<p>Samatha owes a lot to Dancing&#39;s 21.4m average audience on 10/29.</p>
<p>However, for 18-34s, Dancing had 2.299m avg. viewers and Samantha had 2.359m. So *more* younger viewers tuned in for Samantha. That&#39;s likely significant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: angela</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-956</link>
		<dc:creator>angela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-956</guid>
		<description>how much of Samantha do you think is because of its lead in, Dancing With The Stars.  I think it&#039;s crazy of Fox to have put Next Great ... on a Friday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how much of Samantha do you think is because of its lead in, Dancing With The Stars.  I think it&#8217;s crazy of Fox to have put Next Great &#8230; on a Friday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: angela</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/1645#comment-20686</link>
		<dc:creator>angela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:14:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2007/11/07/samantha-who-again-tops-new-shows-oct-29-nov-4/#comment-20686</guid>
		<description>how much of Samantha do you think is because of its lead in, Dancing With The Stars.  I think it&#039;s crazy of Fox to have put Next Great ... on a Friday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how much of Samantha do you think is because of its lead in, Dancing With The Stars.  I think it&#39;s crazy of Fox to have put Next Great &#8230; on a Friday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
