Do stats lie if they aren't meaningful?
I have no particular axe to grind over The CW's Batwoman series. I saw the first season of Arrow, and that was lacklustre enough that it dissipated any enthusiasm for the Arrowverse in general. Arrow season one was, in my opinion, a reasonable story spread too thinly across too many episodes. Characterised by weak writing, boring side plots, and mediocre-to-terrible acting, it didn't enthuse me to watch the remaining seasons.
But there's a lot of people on social media who don't like Batwoman, to the point where they either try to do maths, or uncritically quote those who tried and failed:
Batwoman Season 2 is not off to a good start and has failed completely as Javicia Leslie taking over has seen an 80% drop in viewers compared to the Ruby Rose first season. Sunday night saw Batwoman Season 2 debut on The CW with a 0.1 rating, and only 663,000 viewers tuning in, while the Batwoman Season 1 premiere brought in 1.8 million viewers. The number is also down from Batwoman Season 1's last episode which brought in around 740k viewers.
Matt McGloin, BATWOMAN SEASON 2 DROPS 80% IN RATINGS; FAILS COMPLETELY, Cosmic Book News
Firstly, and least, a drop from 1.8 million viewers to 663,000 is not 80%, it's less than 65%.
But that's not even a fair comparison. It assumes that everyone who watched the first season's opening episode was ready for the premiere of season two; whereas, in fact, season one lost almost 60% of its audience during its run. It's probably fairer to assume that those who stuck it out through season one would be most interested in the start of the new season, which means a loss of 10% through the passing of the cowl.
Far less sensational. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, Matt.
Presumably, the tenet that there are three types of lie: lies; damned lies; and statistics—in all likelihood misattributed to British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli—is based on the assumption that the statistical analysis is meaningful in the first place.