• 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

What networks do you think.........

Should go off the air????

I think all these should just drop off

MTV
MTV2
VH-1 (Plays some music but not much (More garbage than not))
Fox reality channel (Some shows i like though (Cops,Real stories of the highway patrol,busted on the job,when good times go bad (I dont consider those garbage))
CARTOON NETWORK - (Mostly garbage shown (Used to show GOOD cartoons))


What do YOU think should just fail to transmit?
 
I think a lot of stations would be able to share time. MSNBC and CNBC -- let CNBC do its business news thing 6a-7p and MSNBC run its prime lineup twice from 7p-3a. Paid programming for the other three hours of the day.

Food + HGTV. The contents would go together pretty well, and would mean less burn through contents.

Disney + Toon Disney (aka Disney XD), Boomerang + Cartoon Network, Nick + noggin
I don't think all these Children's networks are necessary. Maybe three of the ones I listed should survive.

Big Ten Network + ESPNU

I don't think there are many cable channels that have no merit, but there are lots that are unable to fill their lineups with solid programming all day.
 
Even though I don't think they should go off the air totally, I am somewhat surprised that Showtime and HBO still shows movies. If those networks would get out of the movies and just show their own original programs even if it means reruns, programs like OZ, The Sopranos, 1st & Ten, QAF, Weeds, Dexter. Six Feet Under, even Bizarre & Not Necessarily the News...it would be to their benefit.

Leave the movies to Starz, Encore, The Movie Channel or Skinamax
 
Personally, I could see MTV Jams and VH1 Soul consolidate into one urban-oriented music channel. Perhaps such a combined channel can replace MTV2, which is obviously nothing more than 2nd/3rd/4th/etc airings of MTV's and VH1's reality programming.
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
I think a lot of stations would be able to share time. MSNBC and CNBC -- let CNBC do its business news thing 6a-7p and MSNBC run its prime lineup twice from 7p-3a. Paid programming for the other three hours of the day.

You may recall "Hardball with Chris Matthews" had started on CNBC and eventually migrated to MSNBC. Both networks now serve niches for business and news/politics, respectively.
 
mleach said:
Even though I don't think they should go off the air totally, I am somewhat surprised that Showtime and HBO still shows movies. If those networks would get out of the movies and just show their own original programs even if it means reruns, programs like OZ, The Sopranos, 1st & Ten, QAF, Weeds, Dexter. Six Feet Under, even Bizarre & Not Necessarily the News...it would be to their benefit.

Leave the movies to Starz, Encore, The Movie Channel or Skinamax

I have to disagree with that one. I'm sure that mainstream (box ofice hit) movies still bring HBO and Showtime some decent ratings - at least during the first half dozen showings. Running any network 24/7 chews up a lot of programming. If they became merely rerun machines for their original series, they would lose a lot of subscribers. Otherwise - the Hallmark Channel would run nothing but old Hallmark Hall of Fame productions, F/X would just air repeats of their own original series, etc.

Besides, I already pay enough for digital cable, so I just subscribe to HBO, and watch quite a few of their movies every month, mostly On Demand. I used to pay for Starz and Showtime, but realized I didn't watch them enough to make it worth the extra money. I rent the Showtime original series from NetFlix. But if Showtime keeps doing such a great job with their series, and HBO stays in this slump, I may reverse that, and drop HBO for Showtime.

Remember that if you have digital cable or satellite, both HBO and Showtime have a number of sub-channels. I could see your suggestion working if they both used one of their sub-channels for series reruns.
 
trusty said:
...and the reason you want to have less choice of channels is... ???

I think I'd like to see fewer channels in the hopes that my cable bill would go down. Frankly I'm sick and tired of paying an ever-increasing premium for channels that show absolute junk, and are often now used for re-airings of shows from other networks. What a waste. Talk about the fleecing of America.
 
whitfm said:
I think I'd like to see fewer channels in the hopes that my cable bill would go down. Frankly I'm sick and tired of paying an ever-increasing premium for channels that show absolute junk, and are often now used for re-airings of shows from other networks. What a waste. Talk about the fleecing of America.

If they are going to have an a la carte system for satellite radio, they should have something similar for television.
 
I think there are to many movie channels. Why 8 HBO's 8 Showtimes 8 Cinemax. Sure choice is nice but I think thats a little to many.
 
There are way too many channels on television nowadays. I would like to see the vast majority of cable channels eliminated, and the rest merged. I find the amount of choice with cable/satellite to be too overwhelming, and I simply don't watch TV like I used to for that reason. It is common marketing knowledge that giving consumers too much choice might actually turn them away - for example if a restaurant menu is too large.

"Choice" is a convenient way of covering up the negatives of the number of TV channels there are nowadays. I get sick of "there's always something on", because it means people stop interacting with each other and sit glued to the TV. When my former work got cable in our break room, suddenly we weren't interacting with each other - everyone was glued to the TV and didn't talk to each other. It was especially bad on weekends when the part-time teeny-boppers were there watching reruns of cable reality shows and Paris Hilton trash, or even televised poker. We never used to have poker on TV before there were so many channels it was needed to fill airtime! It had an effect on the workers and teamwork, even if others didn't notice it.

It's the same in many families. There doesn't need to always be something on. I shouldn't have to come home and see my parents constantly watching CSI just because it happens to be on some channel 24/7 now. It's such a waste. I miss the days when you simply didn't have the TV on in the afternoon if you were at home - you went outside instead. The family of one friend of mine eliminated its satellite dish awhile back and now relies on over-the-air television - and since there isn't always something on, the family dynamic is much different, more positive, and shall we say, old-fashioned than most families today. One kid will watch Arthur when it comes on, they'll watch hockey on Saturday night, maybe rent the odd DVD. They're not chained to the TV. For my family, some of the greatest quality time there is is at the cottage when there's no Internet or CNN, just eight TV channels, a radio for background music, and the great outdoors.

TV has its place in society. It is a vital link to local communities and to national and world events, and there is a place for entertainment and live sports. But, the choice should not be so overwhelming we become fixated on the box.

As far as choice goes, TV should be limited to the big four and a few other local stations, and there should only be a handful of cable channels including regional sports channels. The cost of cable can be reduced this way as well. There is no need for more than 15 or 20 channels.
 
With the economy, it would not surprise me if a lot of people started canceling cable or satellite service to save money. We might see a reduction in the number of channels as a result of that. Cable service just isn't the same kind of luxury item it used to be, now that crystal-clear DTV has arrived and so many TV shows are available online (and with fewer commercials).
 
M.J. said:
There are way too many channels on television nowadays. I would like to see the vast majority of cable channels eliminated, and the rest merged. I find the amount of choice with cable/satellite to be too overwhelming, and I simply don't watch TV like I used to for that reason. It is common marketing knowledge that giving consumers too much choice might actually turn them away - for example if a restaurant menu is too large.

"Choice" is a convenient way of covering up the negatives of the number of TV channels there are nowadays. I get sick of "there's always something on", because it means people stop interacting with each other and sit glued to the TV. When my former work got cable in our break room, suddenly we weren't interacting with each other - everyone was glued to the TV and didn't talk to each other. It was especially bad on weekends when the part-time teeny-boppers were there watching reruns of cable reality shows and Paris Hilton trash, or even televised poker. We never used to have poker on TV before there were so many channels it was needed to fill airtime! It had an effect on the workers and teamwork, even if others didn't notice it.

It's the same in many families. There doesn't need to always be something on. I shouldn't have to come home and see my parents constantly watching CSI just because it happens to be on some channel 24/7 now. It's such a waste. I miss the days when you simply didn't have the TV on in the afternoon if you were at home - you went outside instead. The family of one friend of mine eliminated its satellite dish awhile back and now relies on over-the-air television - and since there isn't always something on, the family dynamic is much different, more positive, and shall we say, old-fashioned than most families today. One kid will watch Arthur when it comes on, they'll watch hockey on Saturday night, maybe rent the odd DVD. They're not chained to the TV. For my family, some of the greatest quality time there is is at the cottage when there's no Internet or CNN, just eight TV channels, a radio for background music, and the great outdoors.

TV has its place in society. It is a vital link to local communities and to national and world events, and there is a place for entertainment and live sports. But, the choice should not be so overwhelming we become fixated on the box.

As far as choice goes, TV should be limited to the big four and a few other local stations, and there should only be a handful of cable channels including regional sports channels. The cost of cable can be reduced this way as well. There is no need for more than 15 or 20 channels.

I don't think "choice" has too much to do with people not interacting anymore. I grew up in the 60s and 70s, and in many families, the TV was on all the time - even when the choice was only 7 channels (Los Angeles). I've talked to friends who grew up in 3 station markets (CBS, NBC, ABC) and it was the same - even if there was "nothing on," people tend to watch something.

In those days, when older folks reminisced about how people used to talk to each other more, they were talking about the pre-television days. And in the radio-only days, they probably talked about how people talked to each other more before radio.

I only watch TV in the evening these days - and there is often still "nothing on" (that I want to see)...even with 200+ channels, but nowadays, I turn the TV off. It's easy, and having all that choice has little or nothing to do with it.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom