By popular demand, more ratings stuff

A very great admirer of the Mayor writes in:

"OK, Mr. TV Critic Person, explain something to me: Why is is that you, and all other TV critics/reporters whose stuff I have perused over the past two weeks, are so obsessed/focused on ratings and shares? Are you required to report that stuff? ... That sh!t is boring! ...

"I start reading something about how 16 million watched this piece-of-crap show, and 13 million watched that other piece-of-crap show, tossed in with the shares and the ratings, and it all just doesn't make a damn bit of sense or even matter to me. Ya'all think you might be doing us a favor by giving this information, as you said, to keep us little people from becoming invested in watching a particular show that might be cancelled. But we don't follow that line of reasoning week to week."

Thank you for the kind invective, Great Admirer of the Mayor. A representative from Fox News Security is racing to your residence as I type.

And now, to appease you, here is the weekend's ratings report.

Friday: "Men in Trees:" Ehh. "Law & Order" v. "Numb3rs:" Everyone's a winner here, with both shows clocking in 11 million viewers.

Saturday: Not even the networks care.

Sunday: "Desperate Housewives" was the big hit of the night, but it lost 4.5 million viewers from its second-season premiere. And things look grim for "Brothers & Sisters," which lost nearly 8 million viewers from its "DH" lead-in and nearly 3 million viewers from 10 to 10:30 p.m. Lots of people: Not impressed. CBS's "Without a Trace" beat it -- and NBC's football -- handily.

Further discussion as to the relative interest of ratings as the new season launches (we're only tracking days when new shows debut) is invited.