Comments on: Three Cheers for the Death of Broadcast TV http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/ A blog about television by TIME’s TV critic James Poniewozik. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Three Cheers for the Death of Broadcast TV, Part 2: The FNL Factor :: Tuned In - TIME.com http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-20116 Three Cheers for the Death of Broadcast TV, Part 2: The FNL Factor :: Tuned In - TIME.com Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:57:13 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-20116 [...] of the "death" of network TV that we've been hearing so bemoaned lately, and which I argued is largely a good thing. (I'll be writing more on this in TIME in the next few [...] [...] of the "death" of network TV that we've been hearing so bemoaned lately, and which I argued is largely a good thing. (I'll be writing more on this in TIME in the next few [...]

]]> By: greg1975 http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-19480 greg1975 Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:54:09 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-19480 This whole thing is misleading. Broadcast TV isn't ending, just analog broadcast. So, regardless of your view on broadcast, it's moot. On the flip side, I am sad to see analog broadcast go away for numerous reasons. First, I find it far easier to tweak an antenna position watching analog (I can actually SEE multipathing - not just signal strength). I am not the only person who finds the signal strength bar with huge steps on these set top boxes frustrating. Where's the multipath meter? And give me something with more accuracy! Second, when poor weather conditions arise, with analog at least I can still see and hear TV (albeit with snow and static)...but with digital you get a mess of drop-outs. This stinks! There's also the little things such as digital tuners are SLOOOW...taking time find an MPEG key-frame, resize buffers for screen size, etc. Analog can often sync and be watchable in as little as 1/60 of a second (one vertical blank/sync mark) - at least on a true analog tuner. Lastly, I am sad to see it go simply because this was such a huge technical achievement for man kind. NTSC's basic B+W signal was adopted in the early 1940s!!! This is cool as heck! If I was going to complain about anything it's the excessive in-show advertising of today's networks. How many times do they have to run ads over the password in Password Plus on game show network? Or why do I need to know what network I am on for 25 of a 30 minute show? These, combined with excessive commercial breaks, are the REAL reason I don't usually watch TV anymore. That's my two cents. This whole thing is misleading. Broadcast TV isn't ending, just analog broadcast. So, regardless of your view on broadcast, it's moot.

On the flip side, I am sad to see analog broadcast go away for numerous reasons. First, I find it far easier to tweak an antenna position watching analog (I can actually SEE multipathing - not just signal strength). I am not the only person who finds the signal strength bar with huge steps on these set top boxes frustrating. Where's the multipath meter? And give me something with more accuracy!

Second, when poor weather conditions arise, with analog at least I can still see and hear TV (albeit with snow and static)...but with digital you get a mess of drop-outs. This stinks!

There's also the little things such as digital tuners are SLOOOW...taking time find an MPEG key-frame, resize buffers for screen size, etc. Analog can often sync and be watchable in as little as 1/60 of a second (one vertical blank/sync mark) - at least on a true analog tuner.

Lastly, I am sad to see it go simply because this was such a huge technical achievement for man kind. NTSC's basic B+W signal was adopted in the early 1940s!!! This is cool as heck!

If I was going to complain about anything it's the excessive in-show advertising of today's networks. How many times do they have to run ads over the password in Password Plus on game show network? Or why do I need to know what network I am on for 25 of a 30 minute show? These, combined with excessive commercial breaks, are the REAL reason I don't usually watch TV anymore.

That's my two cents.

]]> By: sloane8 http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17921 sloane8 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:11:59 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17921 I also hope that broadcast continues to die a slow and painful death. Dr. Tantillo, who <a href="http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv" rel="nofollow"> blogs on branding </a>, did a <a href="http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/12/10/marketing-advisory-jay-lenos-move-to-prime-time-and-the-shift-to-narrowcasting.aspx" rel="nofollow">recent post on the Jay Leno move to prime time</a> as a case in point of how the value of tv advertising has decreased and how the general trend is now toward 'narrowcasting,' or niche marketing, away from broadcasting. Television just doesn't present the same ad value it used to, and more and more, what is interesting (to advertisers precisely because it's interesting to consumers) is niche marketing. I also hope that broadcast continues to die a slow and painful death.

Dr. Tantillo, who blogs on branding , did a recent post on the Jay Leno move to prime time as a case in point of how the value of tv advertising has decreased and how the general trend is now toward 'narrowcasting,' or niche marketing, away from broadcasting. Television just doesn't present the same ad value it used to, and more and more, what is interesting (to advertisers precisely because it's interesting to consumers) is niche marketing.

]]> By: brewer09 http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17919 brewer09 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:52:47 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17919 I'm so tired of hearing about the current "Golden Age" of TV when much of prime time is reality and talent shows. I still think the 1970s beat this era in the comedy genre. The best of the 70s: All in the Family, The MTM Show, M*A*S*H, Barney Miller, Taxi, The Bob Newhart Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, The Odd Couple, Soap. The best of the 2000s: The Office, 30 Rock, My Name is Earl, Flight of the Concords, Everybody Loves Raymond, Entourage, Malcolm in the Middle, The Bernie Mac Show, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development. (Frasier and Friends were already bad by the 2000s.) While filmed comedies with no laugh track have been one of the best developments of the past 10 years, some of the 1970s are the most "cutting edge" of all of the above shows. In the early 1990s, when CBS aired an "All in the Family" anniversary show, the network thought the language was too racy and didn't want to air it. On "Maude," the main character had an abortion. "M*A*S*H" was an anti-war show during the Vietnam era. On "Barney Miller," the cops ate pot brownies. These shows hold up. They are not just nostalgia pieces. Maybe some of today's shows couldn't have made it back then, but the opposite is also true. This era has a lot to offer. "The Office" might be the best comedy ever. "30 Rock" is good, "Entourage" brilliant. But I never got "Everybody Loves Raymond" -- supposedly a family sitcom, except it was filled with cut-down humor that represented the worst of the 1970s era. "Will & Grace" was too loud and cliche-ridden. "Sex and the City" -- why? This comment is already too long, so I won't get into the fact that 1985-95 had the best dramas or that this era's reality and talent show trend is boring and lazy. In the 1970s, the trend was toward comedy-variety shows. I would rather watch "Carol Burnett" or "Dean Martin" or even the corn-pone humor of "Donny & Marie" than "Survivor" or "Amazing Race." These reality shows don't exult the triumph and tragedy of the human experience. The exploit it. I'm so tired of hearing about the current "Golden Age" of TV when much of prime time is reality and talent shows.

I still think the 1970s beat this era in the comedy genre. The best of the 70s: All in the Family, The MTM Show, M*A*S*H, Barney Miller, Taxi, The Bob Newhart Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, The Odd Couple, Soap.

The best of the 2000s: The Office, 30 Rock, My Name is Earl, Flight of the Concords, Everybody Loves Raymond, Entourage, Malcolm in the Middle, The Bernie Mac Show, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development. (Frasier and Friends were already bad by the 2000s.)

While filmed comedies with no laugh track have been one of the best developments of the past 10 years, some of the 1970s are the most "cutting edge" of all of the above shows. In the early 1990s, when CBS aired an "All in the Family" anniversary show, the network thought the language was too racy and didn't want to air it. On "Maude," the main character had an abortion. "M*A*S*H" was an anti-war show during the Vietnam era. On "Barney Miller," the cops ate pot brownies. These shows hold up. They are not just nostalgia pieces. Maybe some of today's shows couldn't have made it back then, but the opposite is also true.

This era has a lot to offer. "The Office" might be the best comedy ever. "30 Rock" is good, "Entourage" brilliant. But I never got "Everybody Loves Raymond" -- supposedly a family sitcom, except it was filled with cut-down humor that represented the worst of the 1970s era. "Will & Grace" was too loud and cliche-ridden. "Sex and the City" -- why?

This comment is already too long, so I won't get into the fact that 1985-95 had the best dramas or that this era's reality and talent show trend is boring and lazy. In the 1970s, the trend was toward comedy-variety shows. I would rather watch "Carol Burnett" or "Dean Martin" or even the corn-pone humor of "Donny & Marie" than "Survivor" or "Amazing Race." These reality shows don't exult the triumph and tragedy of the human experience. The exploit it.

]]> By: vastwastelander http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17911 vastwastelander Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:08:59 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17911 @James - I definitely take your point about more GOOD TV, and I do agree that cable opens up a lot of possibilities. I guess my complaint is this: many of these "good" shows, i.e. Big Love, the Sopranos, Mad Men, Dexter, ad infinitum, could pretty easily be broadcast on network TV . . . if only the damn networks got their acts together and made it happen! Between overly strict FCC rules and lame-brained programming strategies, the networks are the TV equivalent of the American auto industry: about 10 years behind the curve, with products no one really wants. It annoys me that they seem to be going the way of the dodo, and pretty soon good TV is gonna cost $200 a month ('cuz that's how corporations work when unfettered by things like "ethics," "fairness," and "regulations"). So I'm mostly lamenting the days of good TV for free, and dreading the days of paying out the nose for content, or watching it for "free" on the internet . . . after paying $600 a year for a high speed connection, and paying iTunes, and registering, and seeing MORE advertising . . . Whew, sorry . . . it's Friday, I'm pissy, and I just need Lost to hurry up and start. Thanks for the trailer, by the way! @James -
I definitely take your point about more GOOD TV, and I do agree that cable opens up a lot of possibilities. I guess my complaint is this: many of these "good" shows, i.e. Big Love, the Sopranos, Mad Men, Dexter, ad infinitum, could pretty easily be broadcast on network TV . . . if only the damn networks got their acts together and made it happen! Between overly strict FCC rules and lame-brained programming strategies, the networks are the TV equivalent of the American auto industry: about 10 years behind the curve, with products no one really wants. It annoys me that they seem to be going the way of the dodo, and pretty soon good TV is gonna cost $200 a month ('cuz that's how corporations work when unfettered by things like "ethics," "fairness," and "regulations"). So I'm mostly lamenting the days of good TV for free, and dreading the days of paying out the nose for content, or watching it for "free" on the internet . . . after paying $600 a year for a high speed connection, and paying iTunes, and registering, and seeing MORE advertising . . .

Whew, sorry . . . it's Friday, I'm pissy, and I just need Lost to hurry up and start. Thanks for the trailer, by the way!

]]> By: James Poniewozik http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17905 James Poniewozik Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:26:39 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17905 @vast: I'm not sure if it's fair for me to respond, since I must have written about 5,000 words here already. But just to take a couple points: . * I don't know which studies you've seen, but the figures I'm familiar with show cable + satellite penetration at somewhere over 80%. See, e.g.--http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6425963.html ... Now this still leaves a population without cable, but it's a smaller one. I don't know how many Walmart employees cannot afford cable or satellite, but they buy it nonetheless--like, I suppose, many things Americans cannot afford. (And rentals are even cheaper. A big revenue stream for HBO now is people who don't have HBO, but Netflix seasons of its shows.) . * But leaving that argument aside, to say shorter what I tried to say above, I think the trend in broadcast TV over the last decade has been both toward better AND worse TV: both lower-aiming crap and smaller-audience quality shows that would not even have been programmed in the big 3 era. Again, when you look at the old Big 3 schedule *in totality*--not just the classics we all love--what is supplanted today by reality was largely the middle-of-the-road stuff: cookie-cutter dramas and rote laughtrack sitcoms. I don't think the mere fact that they were equally available to all is itself ennobling. . * Finally, and this will vastly oversimplify, but I'm just not certain that TV, even in the cable era, is anywhere near as elite an expense as moviegoing, concertgoing, or seeing live sporting events. That said, you make a fruitful point to discuss even if we likely don't agree: Is it better to have *less* good TV, if said good TV is not equally available to all? @vast: I'm not sure if it's fair for me to respond, since I must have written about 5,000 words here already. But just to take a couple points:
.
* I don't know which studies you've seen, but the figures I'm familiar with show cable + satellite penetration at somewhere over 80%. See, e.g.--http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6425963.html ... Now this still leaves a population without cable, but it's a smaller one. I don't know how many Walmart employees cannot afford cable or satellite, but they buy it nonetheless--like, I suppose, many things Americans cannot afford. (And rentals are even cheaper. A big revenue stream for HBO now is people who don't have HBO, but Netflix seasons of its shows.)
.
* But leaving that argument aside, to say shorter what I tried to say above, I think the trend in broadcast TV over the last decade has been both toward better AND worse TV: both lower-aiming crap and smaller-audience quality shows that would not even have been programmed in the big 3 era. Again, when you look at the old Big 3 schedule *in totality*--not just the classics we all love--what is supplanted today by reality was largely the middle-of-the-road stuff: cookie-cutter dramas and rote laughtrack sitcoms. I don't think the mere fact that they were equally available to all is itself ennobling.
.
* Finally, and this will vastly oversimplify, but I'm just not certain that TV, even in the cable era, is anywhere near as elite an expense as moviegoing, concertgoing, or seeing live sporting events. That said, you make a fruitful point to discuss even if we likely don't agree: Is it better to have *less* good TV, if said good TV is not equally available to all?

]]> By: vastwastelander http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17904 vastwastelander Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:05:01 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17904 James - While I usually agree with you 100.5% percent, I'm not with you on this. I think the decline of network TV is unfortunate for a broad cross section of the population, because it means a tilt towards upper-middle class elitism (being an Obama supporter, I'm wary of throwing that word around, lest I be branded a hypocrit). While I'm lucky enough to have the $137/ month to pay my cable/ broadband bill each month, which includes $14 for HBO (thankfully, as I couldn't live without Big Love, True Blood, and dozens of past favorites), the trends toward cable and satellite mean that half the population is left in the dark. Some surveys show as much as 40% of the population not on cable, and frankly, they're being descriminated against. Now I know all the free market capitalists out there will call me a Red, but I think the population as a whole should be able to participate in their society, and let's face it: TV (along with the internet) is a big part of society. Sports, election coverage, pop culture, education . . . the trend towards $100-bucks-a-pop cable severely limits working class access to a big part of our knowledge base, and when people aren't equally in-the-know, society suffers. How many Wal-Mart employees can afford the $1000+ a year to enjoy CNN's election coverage, Nickelodeon for their kids, et al.? Now I'm not saying they all deserve a Lexus, Prada, and a trip to London, but shouldn't we try to allow all people in our country the opportunity to enjoy their few non-work hours in front of quality programming? And how does the trend towards cable work for them? And as far as your job goes: isn't it beneficial for you if to broaden your readership? If the system is excluding viewers, won't you miss out on the opportunity to share your media critiques with an informed audience? James - While I usually agree with you 100.5% percent, I'm not with you on this. I think the decline of network TV is unfortunate for a broad cross section of the population, because it means a tilt towards upper-middle class elitism (being an Obama supporter, I'm wary of throwing that word around, lest I be branded a hypocrit). While I'm lucky enough to have the $137/ month to pay my cable/ broadband bill each month, which includes $14 for HBO (thankfully, as I couldn't live without Big Love, True Blood, and dozens of past favorites), the trends toward cable and satellite mean that half the population is left in the dark. Some surveys show as much as 40% of the population not on cable, and frankly, they're being descriminated against.

Now I know all the free market capitalists out there will call me a Red, but I think the population as a whole should be able to participate in their society, and let's face it: TV (along with the internet) is a big part of society. Sports, election coverage, pop culture, education . . . the trend towards $100-bucks-a-pop cable severely limits working class access to a big part of our knowledge base, and when people aren't equally in-the-know, society suffers. How many Wal-Mart employees can afford the $1000+ a year to enjoy CNN's election coverage, Nickelodeon for their kids, et al.? Now I'm not saying they all deserve a Lexus, Prada, and a trip to London, but shouldn't we try to allow all people in our country the opportunity to enjoy their few non-work hours in front of quality programming? And how does the trend towards cable work for them?

And as far as your job goes: isn't it beneficial for you if to broaden your readership? If the system is excluding viewers, won't you miss out on the opportunity to share your media critiques with an informed audience?

]]> By: yogi http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17900 yogi Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:06:06 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17900 Well ranted. Well ranted.

]]> By: Diane http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17898 Diane Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:49:24 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17898 So many great points. The one I wanted to respond to was "the communal experience of big TV: yes, that is definitely gone, though I'm not sure that's much of a loss" because I think it's only true if you narrowly define "big tv." Shows today get a fraction of the audience they would have in the 3 network era, but with the Internet bringing people together rather than the watercooler, a smaller audience doesn’t mean there are fewer people to commune with. A show can get only a million or so viewers (a la Mad Men), yet the communal experience is magnified because it's so easy to find large gatherings of people discussing it online. I also think there's a huge value to that communal experience, but I'll wait for that "other post" you mentioned to see exactly what you mean before saying I disagree with you ;) So many great points. The one I wanted to respond to was "the communal experience of big TV: yes, that is definitely gone, though I'm not sure that's much of a loss" because I think it's only true if you narrowly define "big tv." Shows today get a fraction of the audience they would have in the 3 network era, but with the Internet bringing people together rather than the watercooler, a smaller audience doesn't mean there are fewer people to commune with. A show can get only a million or so viewers (a la Mad Men), yet the communal experience is magnified because it's so easy to find large gatherings of people discussing it online.

I also think there's a huge value to that communal experience, but I'll wait for that "other post" you mentioned to see exactly what you mean before saying I disagree with you ;)

]]> By: Andy from MA http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/12/19/three-cheers-for-the-death-of-broadcast-tv/comment-page-1/#comment-17896 Andy from MA Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:40:23 +0000 http://timetunedin.wordpress.com/?p=2550#comment-17896 TV is even more a vast wastland than as Newton Minow described in the 60s. . I'm sure cable shows like Ice road truckers, pimp my ride, real orange county housewives are just what I want to watch. Not. There's no need to have broadcast networks because all programming is now narrow casting. . we've got food TV, HGTV, golf TV, NFL network blah, blah, blah and cable TV news? It's horrific! . Let's have ala carte cable and see what shows and channels really get watched. TV is even more a vast wastland than as Newton Minow described in the 60s.
.
I'm sure cable shows like Ice road truckers, pimp my ride, real orange county housewives are just what I want to watch. Not. There's no need to have broadcast networks because all programming is now narrow casting.
.
we've got food TV, HGTV, golf TV, NFL network blah, blah, blah and cable TV news? It's horrific!
.
Let's have ala carte cable and see what shows and channels really get watched.

]]>