Since most TV & cable networks have declined in morale & the liberal biases & the big corporations & the reality programming that are ruining quality television today, here's how congress should act in the way we watch television or listen to the radio. Because 25 years ago, there was nothing but quality television. You either had good or bad choices & the choices were good. My idea for congress is to tell them you want quality television, just like what happened back in the day before big media & those Republican counterparts have ruined it. Just go tell your congressman or senators to tell them we want quality television back, & that's what the Quality Television Act comes in. It won't likely be passed in the house this year because we've got a Republican in the White House, but do the best you can to pass this bill. But it doesn't mean that will get rid of the smut & the reality that we're seeing today. Call your 435 members of congress & demand them we want better television for the people, since we live in a democracy! That's all. Thank you for your time.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Here's an idea for congress... Quality Television Act
- Thread starter dgendvil
- Start date
K
kenglish
Guest
We already have PBS.
The rest is there for the majority that doesn't care about quality.
The rest is there for the majority that doesn't care about quality.
What I meant to say is that there's too much bad taste & reality going on on broadcast & cable television, especially on prime-time. But prime time is continiuing to decline in viewership, which we haven't seen since the early 50's, back when prime time was small & there wasn't a lot of hits & interesting shows to watch. But at least congress will try to get rid of some that bad stuff that's filling the airwaves & that's what this bill is for.
I
imhomerjay
Guest
dgendvil said:
Two better ideas:
1-Use your TV's 'off' button.
2-Put together a coherent paragraph.
Viewer ship won't produce quality, the problem is threefold.
First realize free market is best UNLESS there is an "effective" monopoly. TV stations are not an unlimited thing so competition can't exist in a free market type of deal. They need some regulation. We need LESS common ownership to produce more diversity.
Second we need limited amount of commericals per half hour. Infomericals are a cash cow and kill the entertainment and quality value of TV.
Lastly we need to redo the public domain law. There is no reason for anyone to have rights once they are dead. For instance, the Three Stooges are marketing cash cows but they are dead. There is no logical reason for the families to be able to cash in on their likeness. This is what life insurance is for. If I write a program for my company they keep it. If I am drawing business in they insure me. Once a person is dead it should fall into public domain. Otherwise 20-25 years is enough for TV shows.
The biggest problem is actors and writers have outpriced themselves. Sure in the old days companies got rich, not actors or writers, but they didn't suffere like those of us working at WalMart. It's totally foolish that an actor can be on one hit show and retire with millions. A singer has one hit single and can push in millions. This kills the drive and incentive to create. Once the money rolls in, there is no point to it.
First realize free market is best UNLESS there is an "effective" monopoly. TV stations are not an unlimited thing so competition can't exist in a free market type of deal. They need some regulation. We need LESS common ownership to produce more diversity.
Second we need limited amount of commericals per half hour. Infomericals are a cash cow and kill the entertainment and quality value of TV.
Lastly we need to redo the public domain law. There is no reason for anyone to have rights once they are dead. For instance, the Three Stooges are marketing cash cows but they are dead. There is no logical reason for the families to be able to cash in on their likeness. This is what life insurance is for. If I write a program for my company they keep it. If I am drawing business in they insure me. Once a person is dead it should fall into public domain. Otherwise 20-25 years is enough for TV shows.
The biggest problem is actors and writers have outpriced themselves. Sure in the old days companies got rich, not actors or writers, but they didn't suffere like those of us working at WalMart. It's totally foolish that an actor can be on one hit show and retire with millions. A singer has one hit single and can push in millions. This kills the drive and incentive to create. Once the money rolls in, there is no point to it.
There have been people bitching about the quality of television for as long as the medium has existed. I think it was 1961 when TV was described as "a vast wasteland."
Check out one of the "Guide to Primetime Television 1948-Present" books. You will see a complete range of the good, bad, and ugly over a 60 yer period.
Check out one of the "Guide to Primetime Television 1948-Present" books. You will see a complete range of the good, bad, and ugly over a 60 yer period.
The last thing I want is some congressman or bureaucrat telling me what I can watch, and what news I can air.
If you want government-controlled tv, just find a country run by a dictator.
When it comes to tv programming, there's nothing more democratic than 500 channels on cable and the remote control in my hand.
If you want government-controlled tv, just find a country run by a dictator.
When it comes to tv programming, there's nothing more democratic than 500 channels on cable and the remote control in my hand.
dgendvil said:
...Instead of making vague, incoherent, choppy, and confusing run-on sentences, why don't you just tell us what the standards for TV programming should be, according to the world you live in?
You seem hell-bent on being everybody's TV standard bearer. Tell us what programming should be. Be a pillar. Be bold. Don't be wishy-washy. I'd really love to know what you really, really think. That alone might be great entertainment in itself.
Try to keep in mind that people are not off of assembly lines. There was a fellow back in the 50s, a junior senator from Wisconsin, who had similar ideas, and his end results, blacklistings, etc, were kind of disastrous.
Maybe you can do better.
RicoGregg said:
And while you're at it, please consider that some of your fellow Americans think we're getting some pretty darned good TV today. I have no problem filling up my DVR with programming that sure looks like "quality" from where I sit. Some of it is on the traditional broadcast networks. Some of it is on basic cable, some is on pay cable. I could tell you which shows I'm thinking of, but the great thing is, it doesn't matter. There are enough choices out there that we can all disagree - the show I think is genius may look like sheer crap to you, and we can each watch what we choose.
I don't need my senators to make that decision for me, thanks.
Mark said:
Viewership won't ALWAYS produce quality ("24" is a good example) but it will reward more "good" quality than poor. Simply look at the history of TV programs from the 1950's onward and you will notice the better quality shows always last longer than the others.
Mark said:
A great idea in principle but given the astronomical cost of production these days, it ain't gonna happen.
Mark said:
We were talking about program quality and not the number of commercials. Unless you are prepared to PPV what we now call "free TV" the commercials will continue and become more prevalent. More insidious means of advertising will continue to proliferate like product placement and the like. There ain't no free lunch.
And I doubt anyone here considers infomercials an actual "program" although it could be argued some infomercials are more entertaining than some "real" programs. In any event, simply hit the "off" button when they are broadcast or don't buy their products and they will disappear.
Mark said:
There is some merit to reducing the time period for public domain but.....let's say you worked your whole life to produce a product (yourself) and, like obtaining other real property, you wanted to pass the value along to your heirs. Shouldn't it be reasonable to do so? Why should you or I obtain our entertainment for free simply because the creator is no longer living? Like the restructuring of music licensing there should be a reasonable price point making it "affordable" for a protected brand to become public domain - but not necessarily totally free.
Mark said:
Actually, it is the producers who are attempting to make money on their projects who place the value on an actor. If a given actor doesn't have box office appeal he/she won't make the money.
Mark said:
Not entirely true. The history of film indicates there were many people involved with film making in the early days who got paid quite well for their contributions. Obviously, the stars received the most money because they attracted the most customers. Your working at Walmart probably doesn't bring in the number of customers that Errol Flynn attracted to the movie theaters back in the 40's. Ergo, he made much more than you do. It is simple economics. If you want more money you need to attract more business - no matter what business you are in.
As for the notion that one hit, music or film, will make an entire career - that is largely fantasy. While a single song might make many millions for a record company it will never make an entire life's work for the singer. You need a track record to become a top performer and not many, if any, one-hit-wonders will do it.
Mark said:
Actually, this is exactly the drive and incentive for most performers. Once they achieve initial success, and the money isn't the main attraction, they then must satisfy their egos by continuing to perform and create. I can't think of very many performers who quit early to simply enjoy their money.
Lets start with a quality congress, then move on to television. And Congress has more important things to do than worry about what is on TV.
I agree, TV is mostly crap. Why?
There are plenty of great actors, loads of writers and producers, certainly enough technical staff with amazing eqiptment,,, so why does TV suck.
Obviously MANAGEMENT. The people in charge are not TV, they are sales people. If they werent selling media they would be selling cars or houses or hot tubs. Sales always moves up to upper management and programming rarely does. So you have people that arent media people running the media. They don't understand quality, they understand numbers and all they care about is the bottom line.
But why should they change? we keep turning on the damn box,,, turn it off, read a book, take a walk, then maybe it will change.
I agree, TV is mostly crap. Why?
There are plenty of great actors, loads of writers and producers, certainly enough technical staff with amazing eqiptment,,, so why does TV suck.
Obviously MANAGEMENT. The people in charge are not TV, they are sales people. If they werent selling media they would be selling cars or houses or hot tubs. Sales always moves up to upper management and programming rarely does. So you have people that arent media people running the media. They don't understand quality, they understand numbers and all they care about is the bottom line.
But why should they change? we keep turning on the damn box,,, turn it off, read a book, take a walk, then maybe it will change.
Don't forget it was a government regulation (an FCC
change in the Prime Time Access Rule allowing the
networks to program 7-8 PM (ET) on Sundays, provided
they filled the time with either children's or public-affairs
programs) that allowed CBS to slot "60 Minutes" on Sundays
at 7, and we know how that came out.
However, like most of the rest of you, I would not like
to see that as a precedent; the next thing you know, you're
getting into censorship issues, and possibly a huge loss of
audience who think that classic plays and novels are "boring."
(Side note: I saw NBC's production of "Gulliver's Travels" with
Ted Danson a few years ago and never realized how much Jonathan
Swift anticipated today's society. But how many people really care
what Swift had to say?)
Bill Paley, in his 1979 autobiography "As It Happened," proposed
that the networks devote time (two hours of prime time on a
rotating basis) to "quality" programming and was hooted down
by network executives and reviewers alike. After all, what is
"quality"? While I don't think many people would argue that
reality shows are "quality," what do we do, give the audience
Shakespeare and not "Lost," which a lot of people think is a
quality show?
I suggest that someone look up the career of Marty Starger,
head programmer at ABC from 1969-74. He put on some noteworthy
docudramas like "The Missiles Of October" that also got good ratings,
but who remembers his miniseries about the Strauss family of composers
from the summer of 1973? And that seemed to be the direction he
wanted ABC to take. Soon Starger was out, and "Happy Days," "Laverne
And Shirley," "Three's Company," and others of that stripe were in, thanks
to Fred Silverman, and ABC was number one.
No, let the public decide. Eventually, the reality shows will run their course, too.
change in the Prime Time Access Rule allowing the
networks to program 7-8 PM (ET) on Sundays, provided
they filled the time with either children's or public-affairs
programs) that allowed CBS to slot "60 Minutes" on Sundays
at 7, and we know how that came out.
However, like most of the rest of you, I would not like
to see that as a precedent; the next thing you know, you're
getting into censorship issues, and possibly a huge loss of
audience who think that classic plays and novels are "boring."
(Side note: I saw NBC's production of "Gulliver's Travels" with
Ted Danson a few years ago and never realized how much Jonathan
Swift anticipated today's society. But how many people really care
what Swift had to say?)
Bill Paley, in his 1979 autobiography "As It Happened," proposed
that the networks devote time (two hours of prime time on a
rotating basis) to "quality" programming and was hooted down
by network executives and reviewers alike. After all, what is
"quality"? While I don't think many people would argue that
reality shows are "quality," what do we do, give the audience
Shakespeare and not "Lost," which a lot of people think is a
quality show?
I suggest that someone look up the career of Marty Starger,
head programmer at ABC from 1969-74. He put on some noteworthy
docudramas like "The Missiles Of October" that also got good ratings,
but who remembers his miniseries about the Strauss family of composers
from the summer of 1973? And that seemed to be the direction he
wanted ABC to take. Soon Starger was out, and "Happy Days," "Laverne
And Shirley," "Three's Company," and others of that stripe were in, thanks
to Fred Silverman, and ABC was number one.
No, let the public decide. Eventually, the reality shows will run their course, too.
"bpatrick" makes a good point in his last paragraph. Assuming the original poster was targeting OTA 'network' TV with his "quality" comments, those days are probably over forever. With the proliferation of dozens of niche cable and satellite programmers providing "quality" documentaries, plays, biographies and the like, OTA network TV is relegated to programming to the lowest common denominator. Hence, the number of brain-dead game and reality shows and "specials". Aside from sports programming and the very occasional good sitcom network TV has less and less to offer as the years pass.
It's been a long deterioration from Newton Minnow's "vast wasteland". Wonder what he would think now?
It's been a long deterioration from Newton Minnow's "vast wasteland". Wonder what he would think now?
Take off the rose-colored glasses. In 1983 we had such "quality" shows as Dallas, The Love Boat, and Knots Landing in the Top 20. Source: Inthe80s.com
What was "quality" about those? Those were real paragons of morality, weren't they?
Quality is in the eyes of the beholder. Having Big Gov involved will TKO the already punch-drunk First Amendment.
If you don't like TV then don't watch it or buy DVD's. People like you who want to pass laws to fit their personal moral codes need to carry the Constitution with you at all times.
Because 25 years ago, there was nothing but quality television.
What was "quality" about those? Those were real paragons of morality, weren't they?
Quality is in the eyes of the beholder. Having Big Gov involved will TKO the already punch-drunk First Amendment.
If you don't like TV then don't watch it or buy DVD's. People like you who want to pass laws to fit their personal moral codes need to carry the Constitution with you at all times.
Because 25 years ago, there was nothing but quality television.
- Status