What's really offensive on TV

[mwebster]

Washingtonpost.com
by Frank Aherns
<blockquote>
I'll tell you what's offensive on television: When ABC ends "Lost" at 10:05 p.m. on Wednesday nights so the next show (in this case, "Invasion") will get a portion of "Lost's" monster Nielsen ratings. Why is this offensive? Because my DVR stops recording "Lost" at 10 p.m. and each show invariably ends with a jaw-dropping cliff-hanger. Yes, yes, I now know I must extend the recording time. Lesson learned.

Still, talk about grounds for an FCC fine.
</blockquote>

And the FCC won't do anything about this! I know. I wrote them a couple of years ago about the networks' practice of not following the published schedules. The FCC says they can't regulate program content (what the heck is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction if not program content?). This issue is not program content, it's false and deceptive advertising or breech of contract (the network promises to broadcast a specific program at a specific time and fails to do so).

Main causes:
1. They fudge the times (as in the example above).
2. They like to tweak the schedule at the last minute.
3. Or some politician wants to make a speech and the network news lemmings cut into regular programming (or cry like babies).

 

[Mark_Giardina]

What I find offensive are infomercials, especially if you pay for cable television.

In order for cable companies to make even more money, not like they are raping the public already with their high rates, they will put these “snake oil salesmen” on the air with their weight-reducing pills, exercise machines, hair transplants, Dean Martin's variety hour on DVD and all sorts of other sh** while denying customers the opportunity to select what cable channels they want. IE: Ala carte.

The reason is obvious. Infomercials pay television stations and cable companies’ money to air their crap. There have been cases where I’ve switched on cable and found the same infomercial running on several stations at the same time, which are mostly overnights and weekend mornings.

I was told that TiVo is coming out with an ala carte system in the near future which will be cheaper than cable. Once that happens say goodbye to cable TV in my house and hello TiVo.

<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[HomerJay]

> Washingtonpost.com
> by Frank Aherns
>
> I'll tell you what's offensive on television: When ABC ends
> "Lost" at 10:05 p.m. on Wednesday nights so the next show
> (in this case, "Invasion") will get a portion of "Lost's"
> monster Nielsen ratings. Why is this offensive? Because my
> DVR stops recording "Lost" at 10 p.m. and each show
> invariably ends with a jaw-dropping cliff-hanger. Yes, yes,
> I now know I must extend the recording time. Lesson learned.
>
>
> Still, talk about grounds for an FCC fine.
Huh? On what possible grounds?

Hint to Mr. Aherns, DVRs allow you to extend the length of your recording on either end. It's really not that complex of an idea...many of us learned to do the same things with our VCRs eons ago.

>
> And the FCC won't do anything about this! I know. I wrote
> them a couple of years ago about the networks' practice of
> not following the published schedules. The FCC says they
> can't regulate program content (what the heck is Janet
> Jackson's wardrobe malfunction if not program content?).

Indecency and when a program starts are apples and oranges.

> This issue is not program content, it's false and deceptive
> advertising or breech of contract (the network promises to
> broadcast a specific program at a specific time and fails to
> do so).

Contract? You have a contract to be able to watch Lost? Cool--I want to get me one of those.

There are no regulations--thankfully--about making sure programs end on...on what exactly? The U.S. Atomic Clock time?

The last thing we need is the government trying to but its nose into more areas where it doesn't belong.

It's hardly within the intentions of false advertising that a promo that says "Invasion, tonight at 10" and the show begins at something like 10:01 (the 5 minute example from Mr. Aherns isn't the usual case).

>
> Main causes:
> 1. They fudge the times (as in the example above).
> 2. They like to tweak the schedule at the last minute.
> 3. Or some politician wants to make a speech and the
> network news lemmings cut into regular programming (or cry
> like babies).
>
Of course they fudge the times. So what? It's a competitive environment, and this is the market at work.

Political speeches are all but limited to the President, and that's nothing new.

 

[HomerJay]

> What I find offensive are infomercials, especially if you
> pay for cable television.
>
> In order for cable companies to make even more money, not
> like they are raping the public already with their high
> rates, they will put these “snake oil salesmen” on the air
> with their weight-reducing pills, exercise machines, hair
> transplants, Dean Martin's variety hour on DVD and all sorts
> of other sh** while denying customers the opportunity to
> select what cable channels they want. IE: Ala carte.

Cable companies and cable programmers aren't the same thing--cable or satellite company don't control what the networks fill their schedules with. Direct your ire at the programmers on the infomercial side.


>
> The reason is obvious. Infomercials pay television stations
> and cable companies’ money to air their crap.

Um, no, they pay the stations/networks.

There have
> been cases where I’ve switched on cable and found the same
> infomercial running on several stations at the same time,
> which are mostly overnights and weekend mornings.

Again, a complaint suited to the networks.
>
> I was told that TiVo is coming out with an ala carte system
> in the near future which will be cheaper than cable. Once
> that happens say goodbye to cable TV in my house and hello
> TiVo.
>

 

[Markxxx]

> It's hardly within the intentions of false advertising that
> a promo that says "Invasion, tonight at 10" and the show
> begins at something like 10:01 (the 5 minute example from
> Mr. Aherns isn't the usual case).
>
> >
> > Main causes:
> > 1. They fudge the times (as in the example above).
> > 2. They like to tweak the schedule at the last minute.
> > 3. Or some politician wants to make a speech and the
> > network news lemmings cut into regular programming (or cry
>
> > like babies).
> >
> Of course they fudge the times. So what? It's a
> competitive environment, and this is the market at work.
>
> Political speeches are all but limited to the President, and
> that's nothing new.
>

Actually there is some precident for this. Many local communities have begun to require and fine Movie houses for publishing start times in the theatres and not showing the main feature. Some local communities have required movie theatres to publish start time and ACTUAL start times (minus the trailers)

Varying start times by a few minutes is hardly a new practice. I remember as a small kid WGN-TV would do this with their Ray Rayner and Friends program and Garfield Goose. And if you ever lived in Chicago you RAN home to watch Garfield Goose.

And that was in the late 60s and early 70s

We as consumers DO NOT use our most effective means for change. That is the pocketbook. I do a lot of Six Sigma work with a lot of different companies and let me tell you, they don't care about editorials, about websites or opinions. THEY CARE about the bottom line. Cash in their pocket.

If you make it clear to said stations, that you WILL NOT watch their stations and WILL NOT BUY any product; THAT and ONLY that will give them pause to think.

 

[mjlarochelle]

> Hint to Mr. Aherns, DVRs allow you to extend the length of
> your recording on either end. It's really not that complex
> of an idea...many of us learned to do the same things with
> our VCRs eons ago.
---------
I think you missed the point. Aherns is complaining because the programming changes are being made at the last minute in some cases.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>

 

[KMRichards]

> > What I find offensive are infomercials, especially if you
> > pay for cable television.
> >
> > In order for cable companies to make even more money, not
> > like they are raping the public already with their high
> > rates, they will put these “snake oil salesmen” on the air
>
> > with their weight-reducing pills, exercise machines, hair
> > transplants, Dean Martin's variety hour on DVD and all
> sorts
> > of other sh** while denying customers the opportunity to
> > select what cable channels they want. IE: Ala carte.
>
> Cable companies and cable programmers aren't the same
> thing--cable or satellite company don't control what the
> networks fill their schedules with. Direct your ire at the
> programmers on the infomercial side.

Exception: Many cable systems themselves have what are called "leased access" channels, and infomercials that run on those channels go right into the systems' pockets.

I do wish there was an "a la carte" system for channel selection, but I also understand that there are a lot of niche networks that couldn't survive without the per-subscriber revenue from being on a basic tier. And I know that I would personally hate a channel that I selected a la carte going dark because there weren't enough other people subscribing to it.

But, given that the increase in the ratings bugs is making me less inclined to watch any network television -- cable or broadcast -- I may well shut off my dish and just watch DVDs. (And the "powers that be" thought we viewers would get used to the bugs after a while? Ha!)<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[HomerJay]

>
> Exception: Many cable systems themselves have what are
> called "leased access" channels, and infomercials that run
> on those channels go right into the systems' pockets.

Ture. Though few areas outside of major markets have more than one leased access channel, and those stations exist for the purpose of, ostensibly, letting the "small guys" get their messages out there, be they business, religious or whatever.


> I do wish there was an "a la carte" system for channel
> selection, but I also understand that there are a lot of
> niche networks that couldn't survive without the
> per-subscriber revenue from being on a basic tier.

Agreed, completely. Many people say they only watch "a handful" of channels, but so often some of those cited are niche nets that never would have made it on a "pay per channel" basis. Remember what a sensation Trading Spaces became? Or (BLEEP) Eye? Or the FX originals? How about USA's Monk? Would any of those nets have even been around to produce their shows had they been on an a la carte basis from day one? Doubtful. How many people would have shelled out 10 bucks or more a month for "TLC?" It wasn't until they struck gold with the "A ____ Story" and "Trading Spaces" type shows that many people found them.

The model for basic cable networks simply won't work on an a la carte basis--it's basic economics.


>And I
> know that I would personally hate a channel that I selected
> a la carte going dark because there weren't enough other
> people subscribing to it.
>
> But, given that the increase in the ratings bugs is making
> me less inclined to watch any network television -- cable or
> broadcast -- I may well shut off my dish and just watch
> DVDs. (And the "powers that be" thought we viewers would
> get used to the bugs after a while? Ha!)
>
Can't say as I share the disdain on this board for bugs. They mean nothing to me--big, small or medium, I just don't care and don't think they detract from watching a show I enjoy.

 

[HomerJay]

> > Hint to Mr. Aherns, DVRs allow you to extend the length of
>
> > your recording on either end. It's really not that
> complex
> > of an idea...many of us learned to do the same things with
>
> > our VCRs eons ago.
> ---------
> I think you missed the point. Aherns is complaining because
> the programming changes are being made at the last minute in
> some cases.
>
Last-minute wasn't mentioned in the excerpt. Lost ran long nearly all of last season, and there was no reason to expect it wouldn't go the extra minute this year.

And if it is "last minute" programming changes...that's new? Competition has been breeding a game of chess with programming for years now.

 

[Markxxx]

> The model for basic cable networks simply won't work on an a
> la carte basis--it's basic economics.
>
But you could also make a case otherwise. For instance, I enjoyed the biography channel. But after one year all that was on it was repeats. I had seen all the original programming. I would've paid a $1.00 a month more for the channel. But once it became all repeated material, I would've dropped it.

Without the ala carte, the cable channels have NO incentive to put new material on.

There is tons of material NOT being shown. Do I really need Rosanne on three different cable networks?

I would have to see a complete cost analysis to see just how much exactly the companies spend on a show. In my Six Sigma analysis of companies I have found, most overestimate their actual costs greatly. They fail to use work-arounds and other incentives. This is WHY you have no innovative programming that you had in TV's early day.

A program presented on a niche network that is repeated ad nasueum is often used by that channel to over represent actual costs. Instead of dividing them by airings and sponsors.

Recently we have seen DTV stations not even attempt to program but to fill subchannels with infomercials. Why? Because they work.

Ala carte COULD work, but the result would be the money would be in different pockets. And yes SOME programming would disappear, (take the 80s and syndicated first run shows, that now do not exist), but now WITHOUT ala carte one could make a case great programming is being missed because of the conglomorate corporate greed not allowing them on in the first place.

It works both ways<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>

 

[mjlarochelle]

If consumers are given complete autonomy over which channels they wish to subscribe to, then the inefficient channels with no valuable content will disappear. Good. There is no reason why these channels should be funded - it is a waste of money. With a la carte choices, stations have an incentive to have real programming. There will be actually much greater competition than there is now in television. Right now there is little competition because lousy channels are constantly being subsidized by cable companies (at the expense of the viewer), and they have no incentive to be efficient.

Honestly, if I were to choose which channels I subscribed to, I would go with the bare minimum: just a handful of regional broadcast channels (covers the networks anyway), and maybe a couple sports specialty channels. For those of us with Internet, there is no need for a weather channel - Internet allows us to get the info we want when we want it.<P ID="signature">______________
From WNBC-TV New York this is Liiiiive at Fiiiiive!</P>

 

[Musicradio]

Remember when SuperStation WTBS Atlanta ran their shows
starting at :05 and :35?

Quit whining and learn to set your recorder.

 

[rugrats1]

> Remember when SuperStation WTBS Atlanta ran their shows
> starting at :05 and :35?
>
At least they actually scheduled the shows at those times, instead of letting them run long past the scheduled time.

 

[MegoMan]

> Washingtonpost.com
> by Frank Aherns
>
> I'll tell you what's offensive on television: When ABC ends
> "Lost" at 10:05 p.m. on Wednesday nights so the next show
> (in this case, "Invasion") will get a portion of "Lost's"
> monster Nielsen ratings. Why is this offensive? Because my
> DVR stops recording "Lost" at 10 p.m. and each show
> invariably ends with a jaw-dropping cliff-hanger. Yes, yes,
> I now know I must extend the recording time. Lesson learned.
>
>
> Still, talk about grounds for an FCC fine.
>
>
> And the FCC won't do anything about this! I know. I wrote
> them a couple of years ago about the networks' practice of
> not following the published schedules. The FCC says they
> can't regulate program content (what the heck is Janet
> Jackson's wardrobe malfunction if not program content?).
> This issue is not program content, it's false and deceptive
> advertising or breech of contract (the network promises to
> broadcast a specific program at a specific time and fails to
> do so).
>
> Main causes:
> 1. They fudge the times (as in the example above).
> 2. They like to tweak the schedule at the last minute.
> 3. Or some politician wants to make a speech and the
> network news lemmings cut into regular programming (or cry
> like babies).
>
I find "Reality TV" offensive. I just had to say that. But seriously, the FCC allows Oprah do whatever she wants, but insists on giving radio hosts a bad time. I find that highly offensive.<P ID="signature">______________
"I look out for me and mine."-Capt. Malcom "Mal" Reynolds in Serenity</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by MegoMan on 10/11/05 01:09 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[Tom_Desmond]

> Honestly, if I were to choose which channels I subscribed
> to, I would go with the bare minimum: just a handful of
> regional broadcast channels (covers the networks anyway),
> and maybe a couple sports specialty channels.

If you're willing to do without the sports channels, there is a way to get exactly this sort of package: cancel the cable subscription and use an antenna. You'll get your regional broadcast channels for a monthly subscription fee of...free!

If you're unable to get decent reception off-air, cable systems are required to offer a "lifeline" package that consists primarily of these same local broadcast channels and typically costs less than $20/month.

 

[KML0224]

> I find "Reality TV" offensive. I just had to say that. But
> seriously, the FCC allows Oprah do whatever she wants, but
> insists on giving radio hosts a bad time. I find that highly
> offensive.
>

Exactly! I hate that b~~~~! She thinks she's better than everybody and her audience is obviously programmed to her every command (and nearly always 100% female). Her best friend is Gayle King, who used to be a news anchor with WFSB-TV (CBS) channel 3 in Hartford. I live in greater Hartford and always tuned her out when she came on.

P.S. Channel 3 loves to shove her "sister" show, Doctor Phil, down our throats. I don't watch his show either. (She runs at 4 PM, he runs at 10 AM.)

 

[ViewStu]

> > I find "Reality TV" offensive. I just had to say that. But
>
> > seriously, the FCC allows Oprah do whatever she wants, but
>
> > insists on giving radio hosts a bad time. I find that
> highly
> > offensive.
> >
>
> Exactly! I hate that b~~~~! She thinks she's better than
> everybody and her audience is obviously programmed to her
> every command (and nearly always 100% female). Her best
> friend is Gayle King, who used to be a news anchor with
> WFSB-TV (CBS) channel 3 in Hartford. I live in greater
> Hartford and always tuned her out when she came on.
>
> P.S. Channel 3 loves to shove her "sister" show, Doctor
> Phil, down our throats. I don't watch his show either. (She
> runs at 4 PM, he runs at 10 AM.)

IMO, the most appropriate words to describe Oprah are not appropriate for this message board...but they sound something like 'continue' and 'niggardly'.;-)