So this is how you react to being confronted with actual facts.
I'd suggest that you look at the Nielsen website...
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/nielsen-solutions/audience-measurement/nielsen-audio.html and read about methodology.
Or, look at the "Purple Book" which is the description of methodology that I have available on my website:
http://www.americanradiohistory.com/research_arbitron.htm
The "Purple Book" is the third item on the left. There is a collection of additional ratings resources there. Elsewhere, there are ratings books and reports going back to the 30's.
My guess is that the nasty little troll that lives in you will not choose to read any of this, as you have decided that your separate reality is the true one. And, of course, you will snarl back with some further ad hominem or rejoinder.
I learned a long time ago of the wisdom behind the adage, "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut". If anyone wants to know if any business does a good job in doing whatever it is that they do, you don't rely on the businesses own propaganda for proof or facts. According to the McDonald's website, their food is healthy and nutritious. According to the Monsanto website, "frankenfood" is good for you. According to the brochures and sales literature Ford produced about the Pinto back in the 1970's, it was a safe family car. According to Kim Kardashian's website, she is someone worth paying attention to.
As for methodologies, I've read more than a few articles about how statistics are gathered. According to the self-serving propaganda about the diary method, the diaries are distributed and people are asked to fill them out. I've been selected a few times to fill out a ratings diary, as have many of my friends. The incentives only ensure that the diary is filled out and returned. Usually, this is done at the last minute before sending it in, based on vague recollections. To be honest, more than a few of my friends who filled out ratings diaries enjoyed a good laugh at the local watering hole describing how they pranked the ratings people by posting what they thought were "funny" answers. If they incentives were attractive enough, they'd over-report how much time they spent listening to the radio. Even when honest, they'd report what station they were ignoring in the background as if they were actually listening. Regardless of what we people filling out diaries wrote down, the ratings people accepted them as if they were gospel truth.
I've seen some of the statistical tricks used to extrapolate demographic information. Based on ZIP code and address analysis, I am statistically counted as an African-American because of my "geo zone". But even more shaky is the PPM system that simply measures whether or not a station's buried digital code indicates that a radio is turned on to that station. Through some sort of voodoo or magick, the system can tell whether or not a household that has a radio turned on has people inside listening, and can separate that from people leaving their radio on while they're at work so their dog won't feel lonely.
And then there's the biggest fallacy of all. Since so much of the ratings data gathering is based on in-home equipment, there is a constant repetition of the mantra "Most listening is at home". Anyone who keeps their eyes and ears open can tell that most people only listen to the radio when they get in their cars, or if they have the radio on as background noise at work. The days of June Cleaver vacuuming and dusting in her heels and pearls as she listens to the radio at home are long gone, but that's the model that ratings assume is still common. Either that, or they imagine that the entire household gathers around the Atwater-Kent in the living room at night for some family radio listening.
The bottom line is that there is no process on earth that cannot be described by the people who profit from selling the output of the process cannot describe in such a way as to make it sound effective and fool-proof. Of course the Neilson website is going to make their methods sound like they produce only unimpeachable truths, engraved in stone and error-free. And of course people who earn big bucks by being able to "play the system" and exploiting its weaknesses will insist that whatever snake oil they are selling is guaranteed to work.
When I see evidence from a disinterested third party, some source that is objective and has no particular axe to grind, I will regard that evidence as persuasive. But when a man who wants to make $15 for giving me a haircut says I need a haircut, I'm going to consider his motivation for saying I need a haircut before I automatically believe him.
