Many media pundits are fond of saying that newspapers are a dying medium. That seems logical to many of us since we see the rapid proliferation of new media outlets and devices all around us. But the fact is that a heck of a lot of people still read newspapers every day.
Want some rather shocking proof of that? Well, last week the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority reported that additional refuse from riders, especially free newspapers, are adding about 15 tons more trash a day to the subway system than 2004, causing more track fires, train delays, and adding millions to MTA expenses.
15 TONS! To put that number in perspective, that’s roughly the equivalent of 120 refrigerators worth of trash! (The average refrigerator weighs roughly 250lbs, or 8 fridges per ton). Granted, this is New York City we’re talking about here, but free papers are springing up all across America. Community weeklies are especially popular these days.
Finally, a new poll by Outsell Inc., found that 61 percent of consumers look to their newspapers as an essential source for local news, events and sports. Only 6 percent of those surveyed said they rely on Internet search engines for local news and information.
So, before we all rush to write obituaries for old media, it’s important to remember that a lot of people still read and love their local newspapers.
Last week I outlined a few of my concerns with the FCC’s new a la carte report. I was relieved to see that others are raising similar issues with the report.
For example, Fortune senior writer Marc Gunther published an essay today entitled “Why A La Carte Cable TV is a Nutty Idea.” And Kansas City Star TV Critic Aaron Barnhart released an essay on Friday entitled “The Indecency Wars: Book II.” Gunther and Barnhart share similar concerns about the new report.
First, Gunther and Barnhart agree that the FCC’s report is remarkably ambiguous on several key issues. Gunther notes that:
“the FCC report is filled with so many ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ that it’s impossible to know whether unbundling would drive down rates. The FCC admits that it lacks data ‘about what a la carte prices would be for individual networks.'”
Barnhart agrees and is even more scathing in his criticism of the report’s ambiguity:
“If you actually read the report, you’ll be amazed at how little [Chairman Kevin] Martin actually asserts as fact. There are a thousand “coulds,” “mights” and “mays” the cumulative effect of which is to create the perception it has refuted the Powell report line by line. In reality, Martin’s report has more fudge in it than Grandma’s cupboard.”
Ouch!
Continue reading →
I’ve been wondering how long it would be before a major copyright spat developed over the SlingBox and its incredible “space-shifting” technology. For those of you who have never heard of it, the SlingBox is a set-top device that allows consumers to retransmit their home television content to themselves no matter where they are at in the United States.
In other words, any TV show, local news program, or regional sporting event that a viewer would be able to watch if they were sitting at home is now be available to them on-the-road, thousands of miles away from their TV sets. So long as the consumer has a computer and a broadband connection, the SlingBox can make “anywhere, anytime” TV on the PC a reality.
A few years ago, techno-pundits were dreaming of devices such as these, but today you can go down to your local BestBuy and purchase one for just $250. It’s another sign of how media /TV /PC convergence is no longer just hype; its marketplace reality.
Continue reading →
Once again, the topic of the day for the Senate Commerce Committee today was indecency on TV. Following up on two forums late last year on the topic, today’s hearing featured a raft of witnesses–ranging from the cable and satellite TV execs to former superlobbyist for Hollywood Jack Valenti.
The quote of the day, however, must go to anti-indecency crusader Brent Bozell, who has long championed more and bigger FCC fines for broadcast indecency. But, how is indecency to be defined? As another witness asked, should Michaelangelo’s David be clothed? Bozell argued that its a simple matter of making distinctions, saying: “[w]e need to define the difference between “offensive” and “really offensive.”
Of course. Finally, a clear answer to what should be banned. A simple test–is it “offensive” or is it “really offensive.” Maybe the test could be expanded a little, to include a category for “really, really offensive” stuff, and maybe “really, really, super-offensive” stuff. Certainly, that finally provides certainty.
Bozell’s comment, of course, underscores the inherent difficultly in defining the scope of censorship. And to be fair, Bozell declined to endorse expanding the flawed system to cable TV. Instead, he argued that cable providers with a la carte choice. Of course, he didn’t call for regulation, he just “suggested” that providers do this. (See Adam Thierer’s excellent piece on the implicit threat in such jawboning.) There is, of course, an option besides suggestion and regulation–that’s competition. Let others into the video business. AT&T and BellSouth said they’d like to provide a la carte service–but regulations are slowing their entry into the market. But Bozell–nor any of the others at today’s hearing–mentioned that option. Perhaps that isn’t offensive, but it is certainly disappointing.
Replace Howard Stern? Like him or not, that’s a tall order for CBS Radio (formerly Infinity Broadcasting). In fact, the company chose two people to replace the famously potty-mouthed and popular radio host (who now operates from Sirius satellite radio, safe from the FCC’s prying ears.) On the east coast, listeners will hear David Lee Roth, on the West Coast, Adam Carolla–known to cable television viewers for hosting the “Man Show.”
So where do you go to promote your show if you are replacing Howard Stern? To National Public Radio, of course. This morning Carolla did just that, shaking up the normally ever proper and serious “Morning Edition” show.
Toward the end of the interview, host Rene Montagne asked Adam whether he’d been given a talk on FCC indecency rules. He had of course–Infinitiy’s lawyer’s aren’t crazy. But Carolla then quickly pointed out this stuff wasn’t new to him. Everyone asks him, he said, whether he’s just going to go out and start throwing the “f-bomb”. His answer: “I’ve been on TV for ten years, what the [bleep] do you think I’m gonna do?”
It was probably the first time in decades the Morning Edition crew had to use their bleep button. Stern may be gone, but things may still be interesting for CBS and the FCC. Stay tuned.
In a previous column about “A La Carte as Censorship,” I noted how some regulatory activists were using a la carte regulation as a Trojan Horse to impose content controls on cable TV. In the last couple of days, “family-friendly” tiers have been “voluntarily” offered by the cable industry as a way to head off a la carte mandates and cable censorship in general. But it’s already clear that this won’t change things much since activist groups and lawmakers are jawboning for specific channels and content to be included or excluded from these tiers.
Continue reading →
Richard Huff, TV columnist for the New York Daily News, has a very entertaining column today entitled “Your Kids, Your Cable, Your Problem.” It’s basically an open letter to the parents of America who are calling for cable regulation or censorship.
“Stop looking for outside help from Congress or watchdog groups to clean up, clear up and make safe the programming your kids watch,” he argues. “If parents want to have a handle on what their kids watch, well, then, they’ve got to take control of the situation. Sorry, that’s the truth. Stop looking for someone else to blame.”
Huff makes a powerful case for parental responsibility over government nannyism and points out that if we give up and let the government play the role of surrogate parent, we will be making a serious mistake:
“The idea of limiting channel lineups is as crazy as the arguments being made to clean up TV in general. It’s born of the same mentality that requires the producers of a commercial with a car climbing the side of a building to warn viewers not to try it themselves.
Here’s my advice: Get all the programming you can for the price you can afford. Give yourself options. And if you’re seriously concerned about blocking content, take control and use the tools at hand.
The last thing you want is for someone else to make those decisions for you.”
Amen brother!
After 15 years of covering communications and media policy in Washington, I have found that the most important book to keep handy is not any book of law or economics, but rather a good dictionary. That’s because I constantly need to reassure myself that I haven’t forgotten the true meaning of some words in the English language after hearing how they are used (and abused) by Washington policymakers.
Take the word “voluntary,” for example. It’s a fairly simply word that most of us learned very early in life. I didn’t really feel that I needed to look it up in my dictionary until I started working in Washington. Here in Washington, you see, “voluntary” appears to mean something very different that what we learned long ago in school. Consider this week’s announcement that the cable industry will “voluntarily” be adopting “family-friendly” tiers of programming.
Continue reading →
Need more proof that the a la carte debate has very little to do with economics and everything to do with content regulation? Well, here’s Parents Television Council’s Brent Bozell in the Los Angeles Times yesterday commenting on his desired outcome of an a la carte regulatory regime:
“Maybe you won’t have 100 channels, maybe you’ll only have 20. But good programming is going to survive, and you will get rid of some waste.”
Well isn’t that nice. Mr. Bozell is fine with consumer choices shrinking so long as what’s left on the air is the “good programming” that he desires. It just goes to show that, as I argued in an essay earlier this week, the fight over a la carte is really a moral battle about what we can see on cable and satellite television.
But is Mr. Bozell correct that a la carte “will get rid of some waste” on cable and satellite TV? As I suggest in my essay, it’s highly unlikely because one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. The networks that Mr. Bozell considers “waste” (Comedy Central, F/X, MTV, Spike, etc.) happen to be some of the most popular channels on cable and satellite today. And it’s likely to stay that way, even under an a la carte regulatory regime.
So, despite the crusade to “clean up” cable, people will still flock to those networks in fairly large numbers. And the channels that Bozell & Co. want everyone to get (religious and family-channels) could be threatened by a la carte if too few people choose to continue subscribing.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.