NBC-Universal to Purchase The Weather Channel

[PTBoardOp94]

I believe the Landmark OTA stations are for sale, but TWC and the OTA stations are being sold off as separate items.

 

[imhomerjay]

As one of the posters who has defended evolving strategies and, yes, chasing viewers, I choose to comment on the whole almighty dollar thing.

I know it’s popular, especially on message boards like this, to sneer at the idea of the companies not being content to make some indefinable dollar figure that constitutes ‘enough.’ And we jealously look at CEO salaries and sniff that they can’t possibly do enough to earn those figures---not when they take off the 7,913th airing of “Andy Griffith” to air a….gasp….non-scripted show.

Funny thing about companies, though. They’re usually staffed by any number of everyday people. And guess what maximizing profits and revenue tends to do besides helping the CEO? It can help the employees, too. You know, silly little things like an extra couple of bucks in the paycheck or new equipment or a lesser increase in health care premiums. No doubt people can point to the exceptions where employees are stiffed while profits rise and the CEO buys another luxury yacht. But exceptions are called exceptions for a reason.

So the accounting guy or the mail clerk or the receptionist—some of whom may be working hard to save for retirement, their kids' college or whatever, and taking advantage of stock purchase plans, too—can get ahead when the profits go up. (Even some of us who have investments tied in some measure to the stock market tend to want to see upward arrows as retirement grows ever closer.)

Yup, that almighty dollar is evil, alright. Or are we just so intellectually lazy that we fall back on tired clichés of demonizing ‘big business’ for everything?

As for the Weather Channel, sure…let’s pretend it’s still 1982. Al Gore hasn’t made the Internet available to the public yet, and WeatherScan Local isn’t so much as a blip on a meteorologist’s Doppler radar. Heaven forbid, they take a few hours of the day to present longer-form in-depth shows about things related to weather and the climate. There are still widely available ways to get forecast information.

So they inevitably tick off a few curmudgeons, but see an uptick in viewership, which in turn leads to an uptick in revenue which, in turn, helps pay off those investments in things like HD equipment and forecasting technology. Doesn’t take an MBA to figure out it’s a good strategic gamble.

 

[BRNout]

Thank you for articulating the mindset that has resulted in homogenized radio with little or no local content, with hundreds of TV channels that now offer little or nothing of value and a pattern of steadily decreasing audiences. In other words, it's an awesome description of what it's like inside that little box where all of these folks clearly reside. I'm serious, it's great insight into the small-minded thinking that permeates these places.

To you, these programmers may be "maximizing profit." To me, they are reminiscent of someone struggling their way deeper and deeper into quicksand. Only, in the case of today's big media, these guys celebrate with champaign each time they sink another 6 inches deeper into the sand.

Any ideas of doing TV for fun as well as profit or having pride in what is broadcast have now been labeled as quaint concepts from yesteryear. Social responsibility? Out the window. It's become ALL about profit. Completely. Sure, broadcasters have always been interested in ratings and profit. But, there was another component that had to do with being cognizant of your responsibilities. That's gone now. This generation of decision makers would sell their mother's heart medicine if they could get $20 to buy weed with.

And, the overall ratings show it. Sure, many use various justifications to explain away the bleeding. But facts are facts. Fewer and fewer people are watching TV as we know it. Those who are tend to be less happy with what's on. So, this profit based thinking (i.e. lowest common denominator) isn't working quite as well as your eloquent discussion would lead us to believe. But, I do appreciate the insight because I think that you did a fine job of expressing how the powers that be are thinking.

 

[imhomerjay]

A pattern of steadily decreasing audiences? Fewer and fewer people are watching TV as we know it? Indeed, facts are facts. The L.A. Times published a story just a couple of weeks ago that mentions the fact that “compared with last May, the number of people using television actually went up, by 2%.” They’re not the only outlet to report those types of findings. A quick search shows that even with this year’s much-ballyhooed writers’ strike, TV viewing held steady or even went up moderately. Looks like people aren’t fleeing the TV in mass…or any…numbers quite yet. That’s what the overall ratings show.

Anyone can reminisce about some alleged golden age until the cows come home, about how “back in the good old days, people did socially responsible TV like ‘The Honeymooners’ or ‘Leave it to Beaver’ or ‘The Munsters…..’.” Or fill in whatever your favorite nostalgia trip is and imagine that only back then were people motivated by a higher calling; only they may be proud of their work.

Some of us small-minded people look at the bigger picture (you know, like pointing out how capitalism benefits ordinary people, points that have been conveniently ignored) and accept that times change, audiences change and tastes in entertainment change. Someone producing any one of the generic, fluff-laden sitcoms and sweet-as-pie family dramas of decades past can be proud of their work, because it was their work. So, too, can people who produce programs today that appeal to different tastes than yours and mine. I hate lots of moden art and music, but that doesn’t mean the artists are any less dedicated or gifted in their own way than those who came before them. Nor does it mean that today’s generations that like newer things are so much less sophisticated and discerning than I am. I look on them in wonder and confusion, all the while knowing my parents felt the same way about what I liked when I was younger. Moreover, I don’t cherry-pick just what I think were the best of some bygone era and assume those examples prove everything lived up to that example. There were plenty of duds in every era, and even the biggest dud may have appealed to someone along the way. Time has a way of softening the lines of reality.

And what, then, of this alleged lack of social responsibility? Who determines it in a diverse nation of hundreds of millions of people with vastly different backgrounds, lifetyles and experiences? Do we want the government spending our tax money to tell us what private enterprise should be doing to make the world a better place? No thank you; I for one subscribe to the theory that the government that governs least giverns best. That's a subjective opinion of course, and there may be those who feel the government should be legislating such affairs.

Then I thought maybe there really is no social responsibility at all taking place today. Wouldn't that be a troubling fact. So I invested about 15 minutes of time in searching and easily found factual examples of social responsibility alive and well. Lifetime apparently does extensive work on encouraging people to vote and on breast cancer awareness/living with the disease. VH1 does Save the Music. Nickelodeon uses air time to point out the importance of playtime away from the TV, and Cartoon Network does something similar. MTV also has done voter education for younger people for some time.

Maybe this generation of decision makers came up with those ideas before they sold their mothers' heart medicine for $20 to buy their weed.

 

[KTN Corp]

I believe the Landmark OTA stations are for sale, but TWC and the OTA stations are being sold off as separate items.

Would each station put up separately for sale, making 3 properties for sale instead of 2 choices? Anybody think KLAS could become a CBS O&O to cater to visiting and displaced Angelenos?

 

[oldschooltv]

Thank you for articulating the mindset that has resulted in homogenized radio with little or no local content, with hundreds of TV channels that now offer little or nothing of value and a pattern of steadily decreasing audiences. In other words, it's an awesome description of what it's like inside that little box where all of these folks clearly reside. I'm serious, it's great insight into the small-minded thinking that permeates these places.

To you, these programmers may be "maximizing profit." To me, they are reminiscent of someone struggling their way deeper and deeper into quicksand. Only, in the case of today's big media, these guys celebrate with champaign each time they sink another 6 inches deeper into the sand.

Any ideas of doing TV for fun as well as profit or having pride in what is broadcast have now been labeled as quaint concepts from yesteryear. Social responsibility? Out the window. It's become ALL about profit. Completely. Sure, broadcasters have always been interested in ratings and profit. But, there was another component that had to do with being cognizant of your responsibilities. That's gone now. This generation of decision makers would sell their mother's heart medicine if they could get $20 to buy weed with.

And, the overall ratings show it. Sure, many use various justifications to explain away the bleeding. But facts are facts. Fewer and fewer people are watching TV as we know it. Those who are tend to be less happy with what's on. So, this profit based thinking (i.e. lowest common denominator) isn't working quite as well as your eloquent discussion would lead us to believe. But, I do appreciate the insight because I think that you did a fine job of expressing how the powers that be are thinking.

Couldn't AGREE more!

Regarding TWC, I'm afraid what NBC might do to them. It's bad enough that you can rarely find a forecast now on that channel. As someone else mentioned, there were severe storms last weekend. I watched for nearly 10 minutes, and not one local forecast. I thought they had weather on the 8's? Enough of Storm Stories and other rediculous things like Weather in HD or their new studio. I'm more interested in the local radar, temperatures, and short-term forecast. Why not always have a split-screen up, so that you can have local radar and conditions on one side of the screen, while they play their rediculous programming on the other side? Of course, I could have just logged online to see if a tornado was heading this way (our area was under a Tornado watch). But I didn't want to touch the computer mouse while their was cloud to ground lightning overhead. :

 

[BDBopper]

If News Corporation gets it (unlikely)...TWC stays in Marietta. Quality goes downhill dramatically. "Forecast Earth" and any other program that does not promote a right-wing political agenda will be cancelled. TWC forecasters will have to pledge allegence to the Republican party. Fox News shuts down it's small weather operation in favor of TWC. WAGA Atlanta may move weather operations in with TWC.

You do realize that Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. is a bleeding heart liberal right?

 

[Morgan Wick]

A pattern of steadily decreasing audiences? Fewer and fewer people are watching TV as we know it? Indeed, facts are facts. The L.A. Times published a story just a couple of weeks ago that mentions the fact that “compared with last May, the number of people using television actually went up, by 2%.” They’re not the only outlet to report those types of findings. A quick search shows that even with this year’s much-ballyhooed writers’ strike, TV viewing held steady or even went up moderately. Looks like people aren’t fleeing the TV in mass…or any…numbers quite yet. That’s what the overall ratings show.

I will defend this point. I suspect the poster you were responding to was referring to individual channels' ratings declining, which comes from the proliferation of so many channels, not homogenization. But it does result in a tyrrany of the majority (or even plurality) while smaller subcultures get excluded from the TV universe.

Some of us small-minded people look at the bigger picture (you know, like pointing out how capitalism benefits ordinary people, points that have been conveniently ignored) and accept that times change, audiences change and tastes in entertainment change.

First, much of the economic theory behind your parenthetical falls apart in practice. Try to convince the working poor, or a 19th-century worker in a factory with no safety regulations, "capitalism benefits ordinary people". Try telling the millions of Americans without health insurance "capitalism benefits ordinary people". Ideal capitalism is just that: every bit the idealist utopia communism was. There are a disturbing number of "ordinary people" thinking "There must be a better way".

Whither the remaining TV Land fans with no access to RTN? Whither the fans of MTV and Weather Channel with no access to the Internet and, in the case of the latter, Weather Plus? Not everyone's tastes in entertainment change, and when networks change their focus to follow the dollar, those people are among those thinking "There must be a better way."

I will admit that having CNN, MSNBC AND Fox in the news business is a net good over having one news channel, and ditto having Disney, Nick and Cartoon Network over one tween-centered network (even if kids and older teens have been abandoned as all three channels chase the tween dollar). Ditto the HBO, Showtime and Starz families over one movie channel. And it would be a lot better if we had three big sports channels instead of just ESPN being able to dictate the sports pulse. But whenever a specialized network like TV Land chases the dollar, it reduces competition in the field they leave behind. That's not good for your beloved capitalism. When it leaves an outright vacuum, often that vacuum is filled by a network with less penetration, less audience, and less marketing muscle.

Someone producing any one of the generic, fluff-laden sitcoms and sweet-as-pie family dramas of decades past can be proud of their work, because it was their work.

Why don't you ask them if they are as proud as you think they should be?

And what, then, of this alleged lack of social responsibility? Who determines it in a diverse nation of hundreds of millions of people with vastly different backgrounds, lifetyles and experiences? Do we want the government spending our tax money to tell us what private enterprise should be doing to make the world a better place? No thank you; I for one subscribe to the theory that the government that governs least giverns best. That's a subjective opinion of course, and there may be those who feel the government should be legislating such affairs.

Your beloved Republican party, the party of small government since Reagan, just spent eight years causing the size of government to balloon and getting us bogged down in a costly war in Iraq. I'm very curious to find out who you're voting for in 2008.

Then I thought maybe there really is no social responsibility at all taking place today. Wouldn't that be a troubling fact. So I invested about 15 minutes of time in searching and easily found factual examples of social responsibility alive and well. Lifetime apparently does extensive work on encouraging people to vote and on breast cancer awareness/living with the disease. VH1 does Save the Music. Nickelodeon uses air time to point out the importance of playtime away from the TV, and Cartoon Network does something similar. MTV also has done voter education for younger people for some time.

That's for PR, not social responsibility. There's no PR boost for reporting real news instead of fluff. Maybe most people want fluff, but there is a SUBSTANTIAL group of citizens who want real news (including people who think they want fluff until they are introduced to real news) and world news. I mentioned before that three news networks are better than one, but when none of them target the substantial hard news crowd - and the same holds in local markets where there are FOUR news operations and they're almost always virtually the same - that's not enough. And it leaves the hard news crowd saying "There must be a better way."

Capitalism's biggest - perhaps root - problem is that it chases what's popular - not what's best. There's a reason there are no true direct democracies in the world today: mob rule almost always leads to folly if not worse. Unfortunately, capitalism is essentially mob rule with politics isolated from it. There must be a better way.

 

[imhomerjay]

I suspect the poster you were responding to was referring to individual channels' ratings declining, which comes from the proliferation of so many channels, not homogenization.

Indeed the proliferation of channels can lead to smaller slices of the pie for everyone, as the pie itself is not increasing as rapidly as the choices are. That said, TV Land's ratings (as part of the discussion below), year-over-year (May 2008 vs May 2007), also are up by hundreds of thousands of viewers (credit: Marc Berman's daily e-mail newsletter).

But it does result in a tyrrany of the majority (or even plurality) while smaller subcultures get excluded from the TV universe.

Try to convince the working poor, or a 19th-century worker in a factory with no safety regulations, "capitalism benefits ordinary people".

Being in the 21st century, I'll tend to stick to 21st century realities, not a 19th century factory worker.

Try telling the millions of Americans without health insurance "capitalism benefits ordinary people". Ideal capitalism is just that: every bit the idealist utopia communism was.

Recent history has seen more democratic regiemes replacing communist ones than the reverse. Freedom is better than repression. It fosters innovation, it fosters risk-taking, it fosters individual responsibility.

Moreover, capitalism and social safety nets are not mutually exclusive. Improving access to health insurance need not mean adopting a socialized system.

Whither the remaining TV Land fans with no access to RTN? Whither the fans of MTV and Weather Channel with no access to the Internet and, in the case of the latter, Weather Plus?

Not everyone's tastes in entertainment change, and when networks change their focus to follow the dollar, those people are among those thinking "There must be a better way."

Whither those fans had TV Land never been launched? Someone back then had an idea and tried it out. Is there some little-known obligation that once you launch a business, you sign a blood oath never to adapt your business model? That you can't change to reach the audience you want? If that's the case, where is the incentive to be take the gamble and start a business at all? Should a restaurant not be able to introduce new items and discontinue lesser-selling ones because someone in their clientele might like the old menu?

That on a literal basis not everyone's tastes change is certainly true, but it is the exception, not the rule. Again, please explain how it is a reasonable burden on a business owner to be forbidden from changing their business as their overall audience does experience changes.

As to the weather channel viewers without the Internet, what of the people unable to afford or unwilling to pay for cable or satellite? Is a local broadcaster now to be obligated to carry all weather all the time because someone wants it in an over-the-air format? Sometimes people cannot have or cannot afford something. Life does not hand everyone everything they want gift wrapped.

I will admit that having CNN, MSNBC AND Fox in the news business is a net good over having one news channel, and ditto having Disney, Nick and Cartoon Network over one tween-centered network (even if kids and older teens have been abandoned as all three channels chase the tween dollar). Ditto the HBO, Showtime and Starz families over one movie channel. And it would be a lot better if we had three big sports channels instead of just ESPN being able to dictate the sports pulse.

Every major city I know of has a regional sports network in addition to the ESPN family, and there are specialized channels for the NFL, NBA, NHL (next year, baseball too), golf, tennis, the Fox college sports and soccer channels and others.

But whenever a specialized network like TV Land chases the dollar, it reduces competition in the field they leave behind. That's not good for your beloved capitalism. When it leaves an outright vacuum, often that vacuum is filled by a network with less penetration, less audience, and less marketing muscle.

If a vacuum is left, one that has a large audience looking to see it filled, that lesser network has the opportunity, under capitalism, to try to gain penetration and audience. TV Land didn't burst out of the gate with the distribution it has today.

If no one enters a field in the first place, is that a better vacuum in your scenario?

Your beloved Republican party, the party of small government since Reagan, just spent eight years causing the size of government to balloon and getting us bogged down in a costly war in Iraq. I'm very curious to find out who you're voting for in 2008.
[\quote]
Faulty assumptions on your part. I am not a registered Republican and do not consider any party to be 'beloved.' As my signature might suggest, I do not support the Iraq war; nor do I support deficit spending or government intrustions in private matters. Contrary to what you seem to assume about me based on your statement, support of free markets is not the provinceof just one party.

Maybe most people want fluff, but there is a SUBSTANTIAL group of citizens who want real news (including people who think they want fluff until they are introduced to real news) and world news.
[\quote]
And in a free market society, you (or anyone) are (is) free to pursue that substantial audience if that is what you care to do. Religious broadcasters are one example of having the freedom to pursue a different type of business model (regardless of what you, I or anyone thinks of the content itself). There is no law preventing anyone from offering the programming you advocate. I would like to have it too, but I recognize that freedom, a pesky little concept called the First Ammendment, means it cannot be legislated upon a free enterprise.

I mentioned before that three news networks are better than one, but when none of them target the substantial hard news crowd - and the same holds in local markets where there are FOUR news operations and they're almost always virtually the same - that's not enough. And it leaves the hard news crowd saying "There must be a better way."
[\quote]

Then offer it. In all seriousness, go for it. Show the fluff operations what they're missing, and before you can blink you'll have more hard news from more sources.

Capitalism's biggest - perhaps root - problem is that it chases what's popular - not what's best.
[\quote]

And still the question stands: by whose judgement do we determine what's "best?" The FCC? Some new government agency? You? Me? Popular vote? Is that power you want to cede to the government?

Humans have flaws. Any system created by humans will have flaws. However, there would seem to be some reason people continue to try to come to this country, in some cases risking life and limb to do so. Maybe, just maybe, the opportunity to try to make a better life than they can under more socialist systems is one motivating factor. (I'm guessing it's not just to come eat at TGI Fridays.)

There's a reason there are no true direct democracies in the world today: mob rule almost always leads to folly if not worse. Unfortunately, capitalism is essentially mob rule with politics isolated from it. There must be a better way.

Give some credit to the founding fathers. The system of checks and balances, while as noted is not perfect, has helped put a check on unfettered mob rule. Perfect? No. Does it take too long to correct flaws sometimes? Yes.

Among all of the flawed systems, though, I'll take capitalism over socialism and communism. Care to share your preference?

 

[Morgan Wick]

This thread threatens to snowball into a political debate, so I won't respond to all your points.

Being in the 21st century, I'll tend to stick to 21st century realities, not a 19th century factory worker.

I would do the same, if you hadn't said "that government governs best that governs least", and it was government regulations that saved those factory workers.

Try telling the millions of Americans without health insurance "capitalism benefits ordinary people". Ideal capitalism is just that: every bit the idealist utopia communism was.

Recent history has seen more democratic regiemes replacing communist ones than the reverse. Freedom is better than repression. It fosters innovation, it fosters risk-taking, it fosters individual responsibility.

I did say communism was an "idealist utopia". In fact capitalism and communism, for all that they are opposed to each other in the modern world, are scarily similar in their ideal form, and thus suffer the same pitfalls. If you read Marx, his idea of communism was - to express it in metaphor - that a million monkeys on a million typewriters could produce the works of Shakespeare. In other words, under communism everyone would follow their own desires and just so happen to advance the common good in the process. (He believed in a flexible idea of human nature by which, in his ideal future, society would develop such that there would be people who grew food just because they wanted to, that made furniture just because they felt like it, that cleaned latrines just because they decided to, etc.)

Capitalism is basically that a thousand monkeys can channel the will of a million other monkeys to write the works of Shakespeare for them. Basically, it says that all the entrepreneurs will pursue the will of the market and achieve the common good in the process. Sometimes it works. But quite often it doesn't.

Communism is capitalism without the concept of team.

Life does not hand everyone everything they want gift wrapped.

But capitalism does, right? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I will admit that having CNN, MSNBC AND Fox in the news business is a net good over having one news channel, and ditto having Disney, Nick and Cartoon Network over one tween-centered network (even if kids and older teens have been abandoned as all three channels chase the tween dollar). Ditto the HBO, Showtime and Starz families over one movie channel. And it would be a lot better if we had three big sports channels instead of just ESPN being able to dictate the sports pulse.

Every major city I know of has a regional sports network in addition to the ESPN family, and there are specialized channels for the NFL, NBA, NHL (next year, baseball too), golf, tennis, the Fox college sports and soccer channels and others.

And all that adds up to a hill of beans because none of them are true competitors. The regional sports networks aren't really national like ESPN, despite FSN's best efforts, and many of them are not as regional as they try to be. (Why isn't FSN a bigger national player, if only for things like Final Score? You would think they'd have a trump card ESPN doesn't in local sports.) Except in college sports, each specialized channel specializes in one sport and is the only channel specialized to that sport, allowing ESPN to effectively divide and conquer. And ALL the specialized channels have disappointing distribution on digital tiers where they attract less attention. Or have you not heard of what's happened with putting NFL games on NFL Network? (Speed is the closest thing I can think of to an exception.)

But whenever a specialized network like TV Land chases the dollar, it reduces competition in the field they leave behind. That's not good for your beloved capitalism. When it leaves an outright vacuum, often that vacuum is filled by a network with less penetration, less audience, and less marketing muscle.

...
If no one enters a field in the first place, is that a better vacuum in your scenario?

It's the same vacuum. With the possible exception that the previous network cleared the path and may have created the audience. I sometimes wonder if you think that audience tastes exist in a vacuum and networks are created, shift their aim, and fold solely in response to audience demand, as opposed to possibly shifting audience tastes. Did MTV cater to a pre-existing music video audience? I don't think so.

In the 70s and 80s, when MTV was formed, "narrowcasting" was the buzzword in cable. It's... not anymore. I think the main problem some people have with what's happened to TV Land is that it's virtually indistinguishable from a gazillion other channels, and it's not alone (MTV is one of these gazillion other channels). How is that not entering an oversaturated field?

Your beloved Republican party, the party of small government since Reagan, just spent eight years causing the size of government to balloon and getting us bogged down in a costly war in Iraq. I'm very curious to find out who you're voting for in 2008.
[\quote]
Faulty assumptions on your part. I am not a registered Republican and do not consider any party to be 'beloved.' As my signature might suggest, I do not support the Iraq war; nor do I support deficit spending or government intrustions in private matters. Contrary to what you seem to assume about me based on your statement, support of free markets is not the provinceof just one party.

I admit that I hadn't seen your sig, but you didn't answer the question (which I'm not going to press). And I assumed you were for the Republicans because of your small-government views, not your free-market views.

My point was support for small government isn't "the province of just one party". At this point, it's the province of no party, except maybe the Libertarians.

Maybe most people want fluff, but there is a SUBSTANTIAL group of citizens who want real news (including people who think they want fluff until they are introduced to real news) and world news.

And in a free market society, you (or anyone) are (is) free to pursue that substantial audience if that is what you care to do. Religious broadcasters are one example of having the freedom to pursue a different type of business model (regardless of what you, I or anyone thinks of the content itself). There is no law preventing anyone from offering the programming you advocate. I would like to have it too, but I recognize that freedom, a pesky little concept called the First Ammendment, means it cannot be legislated upon a free enterprise.

I'm not saying we should legislate it (although it should be noted that three news organizations hailed as being among the best in the business, including right here at Radio-Info, and miles ahead of the CNN-MSNBC-Fox trio I mentioned earlier, are PBS, BBC, and CBC... all government owned - government-controlled media is only bad in dictatorships and countries without at least a concept of free speech). I'm saying that the fact that no one has pursued that substantial audience, and succeeded on a level not even reaching the CNN-MSNBC-Fox level, but even merely resulting in people having heard of it, is a failure of capitalism. I'm pointing out problems without suggesting solutions.

I mentioned before that three news networks are better than one, but when none of them target the substantial hard news crowd - and the same holds in local markets where there are FOUR news operations and they're almost always virtually the same - that's not enough. And it leaves the hard news crowd saying "There must be a better way."

Then offer it. In all seriousness, go for it. Show the fluff operations what they're missing, and before you can blink you'll have more hard news from more sources.

I would, but I'm not a businessman. (And perhaps the problem is that businessmen don't want the American people to hear real news.) That said, I may do just that in the future, but on the Internet. Which probably already exists somewhere.

Capitalism's biggest - perhaps root - problem is that it chases what's popular - not what's best.
[\quote]

And still the question stands: by whose judgement do we determine what's "best?" The FCC? Some new government agency? You? Me? Popular vote? Is that power you want to cede to the government?

And this is the billion dollar question of all of human history. No matter what we choose - even if we choose an amorphous mass of corporations - we still leave it in the hands of human beings who have proven incapable of governing themselves in any way. Which effectively means we've proven incapable of being properly governed by anyone, even benevolent aliens (or God), since part of what history has shown is that we don't like being governed at all.

The funny thing is, if everyone were properly educated, any method of governance would work like a charm. Unless cartoonist Scott Adams is right and intelligence is irrelevant to democracy since people will disagree no matter what. In which case we're really screwed.

There's a reason there are no true direct democracies in the world today: mob rule almost always leads to folly if not worse. Unfortunately, capitalism is essentially mob rule with politics isolated from it. There must be a better way.

Give some credit to the founding fathers. The system of checks and balances, while as noted is not perfect, has helped put a check on unfettered mob rule. Perfect? No. Does it take too long to correct flaws sometimes? Yes.

Among all of the flawed systems, though, I'll take capitalism over socialism and communism. Care to share your preference?

How about the capitalism-socialism mix in place in Europe, or the capitalism-communism blend in place in China (as much as their economic development is pretty much more because of the sheer size of their population than anything else)?

The system of checks and balances has helped put a check on unfettered mob rule, but over the last century plus it has been slowly dissolved and the country has moved in the opposite direction, with the effect that the president is effectively an elected king, incumbent congressmen basically get rubber-stamped back to Washington every two years, and the Supreme Court is filled with activist judges on both sides of the aisle instead of people who know their job is to interpret, not impose their interpretation on the Constitution.

 

[dhett]

Life does not hand everyone everything they want gift wrapped.

But capitalism does, right? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

No, with capitalism, gift wrapping is available for an extra charge. (Sorry, *I* couldn't resist.)

 

[imhomerjay]

And all that adds up to a hill of beans because none of them are true competitors.

The regional sports networks aren't really national like ESPN, despite FSN's best efforts, and many of them are not as regional as they try to be. (Why isn't FSN a bigger national player, if only for things like Final Score? You would think they'd have a trump card ESPN doesn't in local sports.) Except in college sports, each specialized channel specializes in one sport and is the only channel specialized to that sport, allowing ESPN to effectively divide and conquer. And ALL the specialized channels have disappointing distribution on digital tiers where they attract less attention. Or have you not heard of what's happened with putting NFL games on NFL Network? (Speed is the closest thing I can think of to an exception.)

By creating such custom parameters, you can ensure that nothing is ‘true’ competition. It’s not competition if it’s not mostly national. It’s not competition if it’s in a different package. It’s not competition if it’s focused on one sport.

Of course the regional networks aren’t national like ESPN—that’s the point. With a huge sports market, they went into it by super-serving a different segment. YES in New York can live, eat, breathe and sleep the Yankees in a way even ESPN doesn’t, even with its alleged New York bias. Same with the Chicago teams on SportsNet Chicago, or the New England teams on SportsNet New England, etc.

If the regional sports networks were to band together to be more national in scope (perhaps breaking away from the national feed only to run local games, and abandoning the other local programming) as it seems you might be arguing, would that not leave the fans who prefer the hyper-local coverage without a viable alternative?

I’ve read about the NFL Network, including the high prices the network wanted to charge for, by my math, about 24 hours of live football, which already is available on broadcast TV in the markets of the teams in each game. They made a business decision to try to expand distribution of their channel—in some cases it worked, in others not so much. Such is business.

It's the same vacuum. With the possible exception that the previous network cleared the path and may have created the audience. I sometimes wonder if you think that audience tastes exist in a vacuum and networks are created, shift their aim, and fold solely in response to audience demand, as opposed to possibly shifting audience tastes. Did MTV cater to a pre-existing music video audience? I don't think so.

I did not say audience tastes or desires exist in a vacuum. Quite the contrary. A smart business (be it an individual or a corporation) might study its potential market, and through research or remarkably good gut instinct, deliver a product that heretofore didn’t exist but that the audience finds appealing. Thus, it can create demand where it did not exist before, or existed in limited or abstract ways.

Time doesn’t freeze, however. MTV, at launch, followed the recipe for success brilliantly, and set a high standard for ‘manufacturing’ demand through “I Want my MTV.” Much has changed in the nearly thirty years since then, which seems to be a fact conveniently ignored. The widespread adoption of the Internet by the general public (more specifically, the broadband capabilities enabling quality streaming video and fast downloads) were a huge factor in leading to people watching music videos in other places—the videos they wanted, when they wanted them. Sitting around waiting for Headbanger’s Ball or Yo MTV Raps (to pick two of their specialty shows over the years) were rendered obsolete when fans could simply go to other platforms (including those run by MTV).

In the 70s and 80s, when MTV was formed, "narrowcasting" was the buzzword in cable. It's... not anymore. I think the main problem some people have with what's happened to TV Land is that it's virtually indistinguishable from a gazillion other channels, and it's not alone (MTV is one of these gazillion other channels). How is that not entering an oversaturated field?

It’s not about narrowcasting?

Food Network. HGTV. Great American Country. Nickelodeon. Sprout. The N. Discovery. Lifetime. Oxygen. We. Planet Green. Cartoon Network. Game Show Network. Sci-Fi. Spike. TV One. Comedy Central. CNBC (and Fox Busienss). Golf Channel. E. National Geographic. Travel Channel. Logo. Animal Planet. Turner Classic Movies.

Those aren’t focused on specific audiences, with singular themes at their core? You or I or anyone else may not like specific programs on a network, anymore than one person’s definition of “classic TV” is the de facto rule of what is and isn’t “classic.”

Choosing to lump all programs into only a few huge buckets is myopic. MTV’s programming is quite distinguishable from other channels if you take a few minutes to actually study the differences among generations instead of dismissing anything that doesn’t appeal to you as bad (and subjective tastes are fine; I, too, think everything on MTV is awful, but understand that it’s designed to be awful to me—I’m not a teenager). A network may employ a genre used by others, but can adapt it for their specific target audience’s tastes and interests. Trading Spaces is not the same show as Temptation Island, any more than Seinfeld is the same show as Cavemen—though applying the standard used on this board, they must be the same because they’re both scripted comedies.

For an interesting take, I read this New York Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/b...ess&adxnnlx=1212984428-G2uQpIZ0oUsVsFffk5NP+A

The author’s observation: “Channels like TNT, AMC, FX and others came up with their own versions of “Trading Places” and carved out niches, sometimes huge ones, by letting viewers know that narrative, quality and drama have not gone off the grid. Those characteristics have just switched coordinates. Sure, “House” and “Grey’s Anatomy” still rule the water cooler, but shows like “Mad Men,” “The Closer” and “Saving Grace” are bubbling up as well.”

I admit that I hadn't seen your sig, but you didn't answer the question (which I'm not going to press). And I assumed you were for the Republicans because of your small-government views, not your free-market views.

My point was support for small government isn't "the province of just one party". At this point, it's the province of no party, except maybe the Libertarians.

In the spirit of disclosure, I expect at this point to vote for Senator Obama. I say that knowing full well I will disagree with a significant number of policies, but expect those disagreements would be fewer in number and on less significant (subjectively measured) issues than I would with John McCain. I have never voted for a Republican President, and unless and until that party stops trying to impose the will and views of the religious right on our society (further disclosure: I’ve been a faithful churchgoer all my life), thus stifling—instead of expanding—personal liberty, I do not expect to do so in the future.

I'm not saying we should legislate it (although it should be noted that three news organizations hailed as being among the best in the business, including right here at Radio-Info, and miles ahead of the CNN-MSNBC-Fox trio I mentioned earlier, are PBS, BBC, and CBC... all government owned - government-controlled media is only bad in dictatorships and countries without at least a concept of free speech). I'm saying that the fact that no one has pursued that substantial audience, and succeeded on a level not even reaching the CNN-MSNBC-Fox level, but even merely resulting in people having heard of it, is a failure of capitalism. I'm pointing out problems without suggesting solutions.

It may be a failure of individuals and/or a lack of vision, but not a fault of the system, as anyone is free to pursue it.

I mentioned before that three news networks are better than one, but when none of them target the substantial hard news crowd - and the same holds in local markets where there are FOUR news operations and they're almost always virtually the same - that's not enough. And it leaves the hard news crowd saying "There must be a better way."

Instead of saying “there must be a better way,” make one. Make a difference. There is no legislated barrier to doing so. It’s a risk, it’s a gamble—and not everyone is in a position—or has the stomach—to try it.

Maximizing profits, as I have said repeatedly, is not the only model to pursue, but that it is a logical model many people pursue (including in their personal lives, if we are to be honest about ourselves). I have praised those who take another path, one driven by their particular principles, with sincerity. No one, however, should be bound to pursue a less lucrative strategy or from changing their business model to maintain the same demographic audience even as the individuals in that audience move out of the demographic group.

As much as it may stink to realize we’re not as young and desirable to advertisers as we once were, that’s life. I choose to deal with it without self-righteous whining and avail myself of things like DVD collections, iTunes, etc. to find what I consider good entertainment.

The system of checks and balances has helped put a check on unfettered mob rule, but over the last century plus it has been slowly dissolved and the country has moved in the opposite direction, with the effect that the president is effectively an elected king, incumbent congressmen basically get rubber-stamped back to Washington every two years, and the Supreme Court is filled with activist judges on both sides of the aisle instead of people who know their job is to interpret, not impose their interpretation on the Constitution.

A definition of activist judges: ones who rule against the way you want. Appellate judges, including the Supreme Court, have the very definition of a no-win job: overturn something passed by a legislative body or executive order, and you’re overreaching by overturning the will of the people. Let it stand, and the other half of the population says you’re a paper tiger that allows the other branches to run amok and trample the rights of [fill in the blank]. God bless them even setting foot in that arena.

 

[raedizzle2008]

Wow. I just hope that they keep the channel focused on WEATHER and keep from Hollywood-izing the channel. Would not be surprised to see a Weather Channel tie-in with the next natural disaster movie from Universal. Or heck, maybe a weather-based reality show. Don't put it past NBC to do it.

Thank you for your message! Seriously, I've just become rather disillusioned...or simply "dissed", by the direction that the so-called "Weather Channel" has gone in recent years. It would be really nice to have you never be more than 10 minutes away from your complete weather forecast, and not ever have to worry about whether the weather (LOL) coverage will be pre-empted by some crapumentary ("Storm Stories", or "It Could Happen Next Year?", etc.), that really may not be so bad to watch at times, except that it belongs on some other channel as the Discovery or TLC, not Weather Channel. Or couldn't TWC adopt a "subchannel" that could make room for these "special" shows, without taking off the forecast? It's not as though the forecasts will be continued to run during these special shows, and it's just agonizing that you're having to wait and maybe you'll get blown away by a surprise twister before TWC even tells you about it! Sure, local channels (and online of course) are a great supplement..heck, they even tend to do better than TWC now, and I wonder if TWC knows this. But what about those that don't have Internet access (to get forecasts)? And a local station, Heaven forbid, might not break away from programming until the storm is about ready to knock at your door anyway. I'd like to see a radar, every 10 minutes on TWC, that will give me really critical advance notice of impending inclement weather and not have to wait for "Storm Stories" to go off, before knowing if I'll have my own personal storm story forthcoming! I surely hope NBC's acquisition of TWC will improve the channel, and make it a lot like their current "WeatherPlus" that airs on several NBC affiliates' digital subchannels. And about TWC programming...sems like of late, the weekdays seem mostly devoted to WEATHER coverage, and many doc's end up airing on weekends and overnights. (Had been more specials airing on weekdays for awhile; maybe TWC's finally getting a hint?) But still, more improvement could be made. Like having TWC return TOTALLY to its old roots, being a WEATHER channel not a "hybrid", airing part-weather and part-reality show.

 

[jsu5381m]

If TWC is going to do crappy documentary shows, they should do something at least entertaining instead of preaching. For example, The Weather Channel presents "Like Totally 80s Hurricanes". Stefanie Abhrams can dress like Madonna in spandex and talk about Hurricane Hugo.