The first blog entry of a new month, so we'll make it really memorable by discussing, uh, last night's ratings

On yesterday's ratings roundup, Bill commented:

"(R)atings are flawed, though, considering the bottom line and the Internet.

"I work nights and have no DVR (and finding blank VHS tapes is not as easy or cost-effective as it used to be). So, much of my viewing is on the Internet. I watched 'Heroes' on Tuesday morning on Hulu.com, and had previously watched the 'Chuck' and 'Life' premieres last week on Hulu, and I bet a lot of others had as well.

"Why should we continue to use a now antiquated system to judge a show's success?"

Excellent question, and it could be expanded to: Why did we ever use a system that polls such a small percentage and the same basic people on a weekly basis rather than trying to get a more diverse sampling?

And the answer, as insufficient as it is, is: Because it's still pretty much the only game in town. TiVo users provide more data, adding what shows were watched up to a week after they aired, but that isn't reported as much because this is a culture that values instant gratification and, after we hear about the overnights, we move on to the next set of factoids. The networks will report on what got watched online if it's really impressive news (for example, NBC touted the fact that its first Tina-Fey-as-Sarah-Palin sketch was NBC.com's most-watched online video), but they don't offer much else - willingly, at least.

Also, the ratings are for the benefit, primarily, of the advertisers, who want to know whether they're getting their money's worth for ponying up big bucks to get their commercials in certain shows. They just happen to be of interest to (some of) the rest of us because we want to know which shows we shouldn't be getting too used to. Hulu runs spots, too, but they're not always the ones that ran in the show's initial airing.

The networks have spent a lot of time talking about their online business guiding viewers back to the TV, but based on the low ratings of, say, "Chuck" and "Life," that doesn't quite seem to be the case yet. If in fact it ever will be. If someone has numbers to prove otherwise, I'll be happy to see them.

And now, onto our Tuesday ratings extravaganza:

CBS won the viewership battle but Fox won the demographic war. "NCIS" kicked everyone's butt with 17.24 million viewers, but "House," with 12.66 million viewers, actually had far more in the 18-49 age range advertisers spend their money on.

Same deal with "The Mentalist" and "Fringe:" "Mentalist" had five million more viewers (15.27m to 10.04m) but "Fringe" had more aged 18 to 49. (In the same hour, the "Dancing with the Stars" results show had 15.14m viewers, but was No. 3 in the demo).

So we'll say it again: "The Mentalist," which held on to its sizable lead-in as well as the audience it attracted with its debut last week, is the season's first new hit.

"Without a Trace" and "Law & Order: SVU" similarly swapped bragging rights. More people watched "WaT" (12.65m to 10.02m), but more younger viewers tuned into "SVU."

The rest of the night was Shrugsville: "Biggest Loser," 6.7m, "Opportunity Knocks," DOA with 5.9m, 3 or so million for The CW, and an ABC special on weight loss had a very slender 5.3m viewers.