Are the Emmys getting political?

The Emmy Awards were held Sunday night, and this year it was a draw between the big winners in cable versus broadcast television. Last year, cable programs such as The Soprano's, et al, absolutely spanked the traditional broadcast networks in awards.
Sunday night, in the big categories, it was 13 awards both for cable versus broadcast.
Interesting...the voting changed this year. Rather than the traditional popular vote by Emmy members would determine the winners, the top 20 popular vote getters in each category were then "reviewed" by a panel of industry "judges", who then determined the winner in each category.
Is it possible that the powers of the NBC, CBS, and ABS broadcast networks want a bit more equity in the winners of Emmys?
Then some would say that cable primetime programming is actually better television and deserves more Emmys. Not this year.

A question of ethics

The year was 1981. USC Today Editor Erin Emery and the news editor at the time (whose name completely escapes me) decided on a lark to run for ASG president and vice president, more as a flip-of-the-finger to the ASG old guard (with whom we had been warring for years) than through any genuine political ambitions. Then something unexpected happened. Their campaign got legs. People started taking them seriously. It looked like they might actually win. They began aggressively campaigning and discussing in more specific terms what they might do if elected. They held a press conference in Sally Watkins' "News Beats and Features" class. I was in the audience. I asked three questions: 1) "Do you ascribe to the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics?" 2) "If you do, how can you justify having your names appear on bylines and in the masthead of the Today when this creates such an obvious appearance of conflict of interest?" 3) "Are you ready to resign your editorships in order to pursure your political ambitions without compromising the credibility of the USC Today?" By the end of the day, they dropped out of the election. Don' get me wrong. Erin would have made a spectacular ASG president. As it is, she has become an absolutely top-flight journalist. And I think she would agree that this firsthand education in journalism ethics was an important lesson. I'm told we now have the ASG president serving as an editor of the Today. Has our grasp of journalism ethics -- and its essential role in helping preserve the credibility, and thus the future, of our craft -- eroded to the point that this raises no red flags among the newspaper staff or department faculty? Or is this an exercise in situational ethics: "we don't have that many strong news/editorial students; they should be free to explore all the university has to offer, etc." I say students should be encouraged make the most of their experience here. But ethics is about making choices. And by not forcing a choice, you have deprived this student of a foundational piece of journalism education -- and have sent the wrong message to the rest of your students. Every day as a working journalist provides dozens of chances to make the wrong decision, to get mired in ambiguity and expedience, to bend the rules just this once. We need more ethics education, not less. The newspaper, the department, the industry, needs more credibility, not less. If the Today is, indeed, going to be a first step into the real world of journalism, then these real-world situations must be addressed in a real-world fashion. Richard, if you were still editing a daily paper, what would you say to a member of your editorial team who decided to campaign for mayor?

Tony Snow as the President's Spokesperson?

Former Fox news correspondant, Tony Snow, became President Bush's press secretary recently, to provide a more open dialogue with the press corp as the Bush administration struggles with low public opinion ratings.
How's he doing? It's not his fault that his natural demeanor suggests he's a bit of a smart-aleck. He's always come across that way to me and he's putting on the same presentation during his daily news conferences. His approach also seems to be the antithesis of Scott McClelland's robotic approach, in that he's kind of flippant and very informal during these sessions. Clearly, he's trying to position himself as "one of the press corps who just happens to be on the other side of the podium."
But on June 8th, he went too far when he insulted every public relations professional with his smart-aleck comment. When asked if Zarquari's death was a PR move on the part of the Bush administration, he cynically referred to public relations as "selling soap", thereby reinforcing that the terrorist's death was anything but that. Of course, Zarquari wasn't killed for "public relations", the question was inane, but his smart-aleck response was also uncalled for.
I get tired of "PR bashing" by people who secretly understand the power of persuasive communication and the potency of reputation management, but think if they admit it, it's some kind of weakness.
And by the way..."selling soap" is MARKETING, not Public Relations.
-Jen Mullen

Net Neutrality

Perhaps you've heard the term "network neutrality" being bantered about recently. Rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel, here's a nice summary from XP News:

A network such as the one run by your ISP treats all types of traffic the same way. One type (whether a specific protocol such as VoIP or content from a specific provider such as Microsoft or e-mail from specific addresses) doesn't get priority over any other type. The worry is that ISPs such as your cable company or phone company and services such as AOL can use technology called Quality of Service (QoS) to give some of the data that passes over their networks priority. Corporate networks have been doing this for years. Packets generated by mission-critical applications can be given preference over less important traffic.

This could be a money-maker for service providers because they can strike deals with content providers to ensure that those content providers' data gets delivered more quickly than that of other content providers who don't pay the fees for this priority attention. For example, Verizon could contract with Google to give their search services priority over Yahoo's or MSN's search. This would make Google more attractive than its competitors to those who use Verizon as their ISP, because it would be faster. In addition, the money that Verizon got from Google could be used to keep their prices for Internet service lower than those of an ISP that doesn't engage in such contracts.

What does it mean to you as an ISP customer and user of the Internet? If ISPs are allowed to make discriminatory deals, at the extreme they could actually block the Web sites that compete with their partners. That is, in our example of Verizon making a deal with Google, they could prevent Verizon customers from accessing the Yahoo or MSN search sites. This is not what any ISP is proposing to do at this time, but it's certainly technologically possible.

So, the question is whether federal government ought to regulate the infrastructure owned and operated by the telecom companies in order to prevent them from selectively controlling the flow of content over their "wires." On the surface it appears to be obvious...of course they should. However, as content providers start to deliver high quality video over the internet, bandwidth demands suggest that other content will be backed up in the traffic jam of digital bits. As we become more and more dependent on our internet-connected-computers to deliver both information and entertainment, something has to give. The federal government doesn't have a great track record when it comes to implementing policies designed to ensure equality. Often these regulations have the exact opposite effect. What it is likely to do is reduce the incentive to deploy greater bandwidth. And if the telecom companies don't have a financial incentive to install fiber optic lines to the home (and in so doing, increase bandwidth exponentially), we'll be stuck with computers that are only good for text, images, and music...with TVs and DVD players providing the moving images. What do you think? Can we have HDTV on our computers and at the same time have universally available service?

Advertising in a Google Universe

The World Advertising Research Center (WARC) and other data collectors around the United States have been scaring the advertising community with tales of doom for the past few years: If you don't shift to New Media sources pretty soon, Mr and Ms Marketers, your audiences for advertising are going to disappear. Or at least track in a new direction. Not good news to those television networks and newspapers that depend so heavily on advertising revenue, certainly, but an alert that is shuddering the integrated communication world more fiercely each day. Not to mention the directories services that made advertising more than just a yellow page.

Google, that initially upstart search engine gone Wall Street, has made things even more dicey by localizing their media offerings online. According to WARC, "Google's Local Business service has been undergoing limited US trials since December, with the participation of selected advertisers such as Barnes & Noble. The Google Local pilot enabled searchers using terms like 'bookstore New York' to auto-activate a map of Manhattan marked with small coffee-cup logos indicating the location of selected B&N stores." (WARC, April 3, 2006)

So, everyone in the old media chain is now quaking in their boots. And, like so many interactive/direct response media of the late 1900s, the Google advertising is billed on a price per inquiry (price per click thru) basis so it's more measurable than ever. This may be the great shift for service providers, retailers, as well as branded goods makers: The more ROI measures available to prove that internet advertising is working (or not in some cases), the more budget is going to underwrite those opportunities.

What WILL happen to those creative prime time TV spots or those glossy magazines pages? Food for thought.

Free TV on your computer

Last week ABC announced that it will be offering some of its top-rated shows, for free, over the Internet. Until now you’ve had to pay $1.99 for downloads of Lost and other fare. Now they’re free, but you have to watch the embedded commercial spots. You might think, hey, its just like watching commercial TV…and you’d be right, except that now it’s on-demand. Competing networks have also been offering their programs as podcasts viewable on a computer or video-equipped iPod. NBC’s The Office is an example of a TV show that has really found its niche online. While most people still watch by turning on their TV and tuning in to a local station or cable network, the traditional “appointment TV” paradigm is beginning to wear thin around the edges. People want control of their media experience…and that means they want to watch what they want, when they want it. All of this is leaving local broadcast affiliates feeling unnecessary. Of course, it’s the bottom line that they’re worried about. More Internet downloads means fewer viewers for the broadcast of the program, and that means less advertising revenue. What do you think? Will all TV programming eventually move to on-demand delivery? And if so, what will be the role of the local broadcast affiliate?

Did 'Dateline NBC' practice sound journalism?

An April 6 USA Today story by Nate Ryan reported that “Dateline NBC” is defending its actions after bringing Muslim men to Martinsville (Va.) Speedway to gauge the reaction of NASCAR fans.

According to the article, NBC defended its reporting tactics in a statement released last week. NBC said the news magazine is ”following up on a recent poll and other articles indicating an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. … There is nothing new about the technique of witnessing the experience of someone who might be discriminated against in a public setting.”

NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said the Muslim men walked around outside the track and that NASCAR fans had no reaction to the group. Poston said NBC was seeking “to create the news instead of reporting the news.”

What do you think? Did “Dateline NBC” justify their actions? Or was the news magazine attempting to sensationalize stereotypes that exist both for NASCAR fans and for Muslims?

(See http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2006-04-06-dateline_x.htm)

Bye Bye Howard

Jacobs Media has reported that 70% of Howard Stern’s Rock listeners have decided not to “sign up” with Sirius Satellite. Approximately 20% of Stern’s audience has subscribed – another 10% plan on subscribing. Is this good news for terrestrial broadcasters fearing an audience exodus from FM rockers like WXRK in New York or KXTE in Las Vegas? Is Howard’s brand of radio wearing thin... or is it only a matter of time before a majority of Stern’s former audience “gives in” to the $12.95 price tag?

The Future of News

A Poynteronline article by Bob Andelman quotes Andrew Heywood, former CBS News president, on the future of news:

"Bloggers will say, 'News is no longer a lecture like this; it's a conversation.' Others will say, 'Mainstream news is the conversation starter,' " said Heyward. "I think there will be a new Darwinism. In an era of authenticity, quality will win out. You're going to see much more emphasis on the highest quality products winning."

So says Andrew. What say you?

How do you want your cable television?

We're already buying our music one song at a time, why not pay for our cable television one program at at time? Yes, let the rumble begin between the cable industry, the FCC, and our elected officials, over bundling of cable channels versus ala carte individual program selection.

The way it is now, a cable subscriber purchases a cable package and gets 50-70, or more, great channels...of which we only watch 16, according to the FCC, yet pay a pretty hefty monthly fee. Sounds a lot like purchasing that CD for full price, but only really liking two songs, doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be great to actually pick your top 30 cable channels for that monthly fee? No more food network if you don't want it, hey, throw in world federation wrestling, if you're into that. Pay for what you watch; no more, no less.
Well, as of this week, FCC chairman, Kevin Martin has changed his mind and is now in agreement that the cable industry should examine ala carte programming choice rather than bundling. Martin says it would help parents purchase better programming for their kids (no more Playboy channel as part of your bundle) and actually lower our cable bill each month.

A USA TODAY/CNN poll of U.S. viewers shows that 54% would prefer buying their cable channels individually, and 43% said they'd rather have the flat fee and get a bundled assortment of channels. Martin sights the fact that expanded basic cable has increased in cost 40% in the past five years, when overall prices for goods and services has only increased 12%. Sounds like the cable industry has had it good for a long time, doesn't it?

Needless to say, the cable industry is aggressively challenging this notion with some intense media relations and government lobbying.
The cable industry says that ala carte would imperil the small stations that don't program the most popular cable shows, and that ala carte would actually drive up the monthly price, not lower it.

Right now, a portion of cable's profit is based on the number of subscriptions purchased for the bundles options. If shows are individually purchased, cable experts say some of those cable programs that are great, but have really small audiences, won't be able to survive. No doubt, that is the beauty of cable television, each program doesn't live and die by its viewership because it's protected in a bundled format.

So before you call your congressional representative to support ala carte cable programming, remember that if others don't purchase the "sewing channel" that you're addicted to, it just might not be on anymore. Or, on the other hand, if hardly anybody is watching the sewing channel, why should it be produced on television?
Maybe it's worth it? Is it to you?

How 'bout those Olympic Games?

Are you, like tens of millions of other Americans, captivated by the dramatic stories of formerly unknown teens and twenty-somethings searching for their 15 seconds of fame? Are you mesmerized by the hyped-up stories of years and years of hard work that may or may not propel them to the podium? And are you fascinated by the cutthroat competition and the scathing pronouncements of the judges? Well then, you, like millions of your fellow Americans are probably tuning in to watch American Idol.

Yes I know, the title of this post threw you. You thought I was talking about the Olympic Games...that biennial celebration of the power and glory of athletic competition. But the sad truth is the Olympics just aren’t what they used to be when it comes to TV ratings. NBC’s coverage of the games has been contrived and choppy, so perhaps they deserve to be trounced by Idol. But who would have thought that a reality TV show that features vocal contestants vying for a chance to be insulted by a trio of C-list celebrities would pull in nearly twice the viewers as programming that was once an icon of “must-see-TV” viewing?

What do you think...are the Olympic games passé?, or are we just a nation in love with Idol?

Should the universal service fee fund broadband for rural areas?

Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns has introduced a bill to revise the universal service program, allowing funds from this program to help subsidize broadband and other high-speed telecom services for rural areas. According to an article published in The Missoulian and reported in The Rural Blog, this change would mean more telecom-related services (including Internet voice, cable Internet and broadband) would have to pay into the universal service charge. (See http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/02/11/news/mtregional/news08.txt)

In a related story (also from The Rural Blog), Drew Clark of National Journal’s Technology Daily reports that broadband Web service is becoming an economic necessity for rural American communities. Without broadband, these communities are unable to meet the growing technological needs of businesses, and businesses are being driven to relocate to areas that can provide them with proper technology. (See http://www.RuralJournalism.org, click on “Rural Blog” and access the blog for Monday, Feb. 13, 2006.)

Are you willing to pay the universal service charge for your cable Internet/broadband services to help rural communities in America become more technologically and economically competitive? Is the universal service charge the answer for making high-speed/broadband Internet affordable for more Americans? What other options are there?

The name of the blog

Let's get creative. Face it: most blogs ought to be called blahgs to signify the so-so content they contain (I'm neither including nor excluding this one in that category). What other terms can we use to identify blogs by content? If a blog is particularly edgy, for example, or particularly accurate in the information it provides, should it remain merely a blog? I think we need a descriptive lexicon to distinguish blogs from one another. Perhaps that lexicon already exists. If so, enlighten us all. If not, let's begin here with:

Blahg: A thoroughly enervating blog.


Add on, folks!

Book of Daniel has an afterlife on the web

If you blinked and missed the four episodes of The Book of Daniel on NBC, you have one more chance to catch a couple of episodes before it is sent to programming purgatory. Drawing more criticism than viewers (only about 6-7 million viewers per episode) the show was attacked by the American Family Association and others who viewed the portrayal of Christ as "blasphemous" and the minister and his family as dysfuntional at best. Surf on over to http://www.nbc.com/The_Book_of_Daniel/ to see remaining episodes and judge for yourself if this experiment in "edgy" programming deserved its fate.
Once you do, tell us what you think. Was it strong-arm tactics by offended viewers or simply market forces at work that pushed Daniel off the air? And while I'm asking questions, do you think the future of "broadcast" TV is safe, lowest-common-denominator fare while everything else will migrate to cable and the web?