Posted on 04/25/2011 8:53:19 AM PDT by Immerito
Just wondering why TV has not evolved like the rest of technology. Why do cable providers dont do more on Video Demand and PPV. If they placed all those reruns on VOD and you payed them a $1 would we all not be happy.
Over the top is soo hard for these old school companies to understand but yet we Netflix.
The BBC has accountants and business suits too of course. Far more of them now than ever, but they aren't running the whole show. The creative types still have a greater say in whether shows are continued or discontinued. It's odd really. Typically in a capitalist model market pressure should push the quality of shows up, and on a technical level (photography and special fx) it does, but in terms of plotting, storyline, acting, directing and so commercial TV seems to push towards the bland.
TNG = the gayest Star Trek.
BBC is an arm of the government, largely paid for by the TV tax. Sometimes that frees it up to put on better TV, but it also frees it up to put on a lot of absolute dreck that thankfully never gets over here, and of course there’s the whole being a propaganda machine problem.
What you’re missing is what the product is. TV shows are NOT the product TV channels sell, WE are the product they sell, TV shows are just there to lure us to watch commercials.
The BBC is an odd institution, for which there is no real equivalent in the US. "Arm of the government" is to put it in strictly US libertarian terms which are not really appropriate. The best analogy I can come up with is that it is more like the broadcasting equivalent of a public university. It is very departmentalised, and each department is very much serving the needs of its client audience. So, just as in a public university, there is a sociology department that is full of deeply intense men with beards and hideous females bemoaning how badly done to they are. And there is a natural history department full of eco-freaks who peddle gaia worship behind nice pretty panoramas of animal kingdom wonders. But there is also an engineering department that builds and races cars all the time and couldn't give two hoots about lesser spotted owls, and a chemistry department that just likes creating bad smells and laughing at all of them.
Sometimes that frees it up to put on better TV, but it also frees it up to put on a lot of absolute dreck that thankfully never gets over here, and of course there’s the whole being a propaganda machine problem.
According to that great American sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon 90% of everything is dreck! As for "propoganda", balanced viewpoints are impossible. On that basis you could argue every TV channel is peddling propoganda. At least the BBC (because of its departmental structure) has a variety of biased viewpoints. Pick the ones you like!
What you’re missing is what the product is. TV shows are NOT the product TV channels sell, WE are the product they sell, TV shows are just there to lure us to watch commercials.
I know, and that is the point. With Commercial channels you are one more step removed from the process. Commercial TV is a quirk in the capitalist model. The stations provide the product, but the money comes from advertisers, rather that you the customer (Yes I know there is PPV, but that's a small part of the market). Personally, I prefer TV channels to show what I want, not what some TV executive THINKS that an advertiser MIGHT be prepared to sponsor.
When your corporation gets most of its money from the government you’re an arm of the government whether you can admit it or not.
I think the Beeb gets a lot more than 90% dreck. Even the BBC makes fun of how much bad TV there is on the BBC.
It’s not about balance, it’s about control. I don’t expect balance in anything within itself, but I prefer the control is in the hands of private citizens. Because private citizens are easier to “fire” than the government.
We aren’t the customer of commercial TV, advertisers are the customer, we’re the product, shows are the lure and structure. The only way to get a channel that shows just the stuff you want is to own it. Worked great for Howard Hughes, not sure what the rest of LA thought about Ice Station Zebra being on all the time though. TV execs don’t put on what they think might be sponsored, they don’t put on any show they don’t have advertisers for, what they’re putting on is what they think might draw enough viewers to be worth the sponsors money.
I work for a private company that works for a privately owned shipyard that gets most of its work from the government - does that make the company I work for an "arm of the government"?
You said it yourself. Its all about control. The BBC may be (mostly) funded by a tax levied on its behalf by the government on the citizenry, but that doesn't mean the government controls it. The rights and duties of HMG and the BBC are clearly written out in a large legal contract called the BBC charter. That sets out exactly what each side can and cannot do. Control isn't control if it cannot be implemented.
I think the Beeb gets a lot more than 90% dreck. Even the BBC makes fun of how much bad TV there is on the BBC.
That's good old-fashioned British self-depreciation. I'd be more worried if your TV company kept saying that it was great no matter what eveyone else thinks.
It’s not about balance, it’s about control. I don’t expect balance in anything within itself, but I prefer the control is in the hands of private citizens. Because private citizens are easier to “fire” than the government.
Easier to fire than commercial apparatchiks too. I'd rather any measure of control over a TV company was by a democratically elected government than an unelected board of faceless, anonymous business suits, who have no responsibility at all to the viewer.
We aren’t the customer of commercial TV, advertisers are the customer, we’re the product, shows are the lure and structure. The only way to get a channel that shows just the stuff you want is to own it. Worked great for Howard Hughes, not sure what the rest of LA thought about Ice Station Zebra being on all the time though. TV execs don’t put on what they think might be sponsored, they don’t put on any show they don’t have advertisers for, what they’re putting on is what they think might draw enough viewers to be worth the sponsors money.
That sounds like a recipe for rubbish programs and unaccountability to public tastes. Personally, I'd prefer to be a customer than a "product", but if you are happy being a plaything for corporate america, knock yourself out.
The shipyard functionally is, you’ve got a layer of separation.
No actually it DOES mean the government controls it. Because any time the BBC does something the government doesn’t like the government has the power to choke them off. We had this discussion in FR extensively back when Bush put forth his “faith based” initiative that was going to funnel government money through church groups. All the smart ones knew it was a bad idea for the church groups because money never comes from the government without strings. Control CAN be implemented, they just gotta choke off the money supply, it doesn’t have to be official, they don’t have to say “because you did this we’re punishing you”, they can just say “the economy is tough, revenues are down, and on an unrelated note we didn’t like that program”. No money ever comes from the government free of influence, it’s the government, it’s not your friend.
Actually in the case of BBC programing making fun of the crap on there is plain ol truth telling. You ever actually looked at a BBC schedule? Especially 2, 3, or 4? Yeesh. It’s like the worst of PBS.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Giving the government control of the communications medium is like giving a loaded gun to a drunk 5 year old. You can become a member of that unelected board of suits.
And you’re wrong again. That formula is ENTIRELY beholden to public taste. If the public doesn’t like the shows then they don’t turn their eyeballs to the show, and the company can’t sell commercials. It’s just like fishing, the shows are the bait, if your bait is not to the taste of the fish you don’t get any fish. We’re actually very much in charge of what’s on TV, anything we don’t watch goes away. Unlike when the government is in charge, they don’t really care if people watch, they already got the tax money.
Except that the shipyard is our only customer.
No actually it DOES mean the government controls it. Because any time the BBC does something the government doesn’t like the government has the power to choke them off.
Look, any government has the practical power to choke ANY TV station off if they do something they don't like! Do you think the US government can't put the squeeze on Fox news? Well we know they can. They deny them interviews because they are "biased". How is that not a control? If the UK government disapproved of something the BBC did, they could find some way of "punishing" them - but the BBC would retaliate in the same way Fox news did. They simply announce what the Government has done publically and wait for the political bomb to explode! And that has happened on several occasions that I can think of. The BBC and the UK government have had some massive rows.
...All the smart ones knew it was a bad idea for the church groups because money never comes from the government without strings. Control CAN be implemented, they just gotta choke off the money supply, it doesn’t have to be official, they don’t have to say “because you did this we’re punishing you”, they can just say “the economy is tough, revenues are down, and on an unrelated note we didn’t like that program”. No money ever comes from the government free of influence, it’s the government, it’s not your friend.
Why are you singling out Government for your objection? Surely you could say money never comes from ANYWHERE without strings. No money ever comes from ANYWHERE free of influence. You think that the advertisers who finance US TV dont have an agenda, don't tamper with creative decisions, or even commercial ones? Do you think that a commercial TV consumer program is going to criticise the products of a major sponsor? US TV may claim to be independent, but it isn't really. It just has a different master. At least there is more transparency with the licence fee, because I am going to be personally affected if the BBC wastes it, or doesn't provide good programs. In a commercial TV situation, you are one step removed from the process.
Actually in the case of BBC programing making fun of the crap on there is plain ol truth telling. You ever actually looked at a BBC schedule? Especially 2, 3, or 4? Yeesh. It’s like the worst of PBS.
Well obviously. As PBS gets a substantial proportion of its products from the BBC, and they are only going to pick the cream of the crop, then sure all the duds are left. But the point is at least they are prepared to take chances with programming. The problem with US TV is not that it is all bad - indeed there are some very good US programs - but that it is very derivative. When a good program manages to make US TV screens (the sheer volume of them means some good ones get made occasionally) they are absolutely milked to death, and there will be umpteen copies of the format in the next six months. Buffy the vampire slayer was a big hit a few years back, and now you can't move for supernatural series.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Giving the government control of the communications medium is like giving a loaded gun to a drunk 5 year old.
I dont think it is. And the last seventy years in the UK bear that out.
You can become a member of that unelected board of suits.
You can. But you probably won't. And for sure we can't ALL become members of it.
And you’re wrong again. That formula is ENTIRELY beholden to public taste. If the public doesn’t like the shows then they don’t turn their eyeballs to the show, and the company can’t sell commercials. It’s just like fishing, the shows are the bait, if your bait is not to the taste of the fish you don’t get any fish. We’re actually very much in charge of what’s on TV, anything we don’t watch goes away.
The problem with that argument is that TV programs, or any other creative products, are not like purchasing candy bars, or shoe polish, or jewelery. They sometimes take time to get established - particularly if they are very original. It takes time to develop characters, plots, storylines and so on. It takes time for actors to work into parts, for writers to figure out how everything interacts. But the commercial TV situation demands instant results. How many very promising US TV series have there been which started off a bit shaky, but then settled down, just started to get interesting and generally good, and then get cancelled? Far too many.
This has other bad consequences. To try and get round that producers rely far too much on sudden shock tactics, especially in the opening episodes of new series. And they almost never finish story arcs - there is always an unresolved situation at the end of a season, not for a creative reason, but just to try and stop from being cancelled. And if the series does become popular, the demand for more and more is immense, and inevitably quality declines.
Yes of course you are in control of what is seen on TV, and for the reasons that you specify, but its a plural "you". Its all based on numbers. The advertisers don't care how much you enjoy the show, just how many of you are prepared to watch it. In other words, in a commercial TV setup, the tendency is towards shows that everyone will put up with, rather than towards shows that some people will really enjoy.
Unlike when the government is in charge, they don’t really care if people watch, they already got the tax money.
But the government does not have that tax money. The licence fee is used solely for the BBC. The BBC decides how to spend it, not the UK government. The BBC does not care as much if people do not watch their shows, but they cannot afford to be complacent because if there programs are completely unwatchable people start to complain - and not just to the BBC, but to their own elected representatives.
There’s a big difference between being able to “put the squeeze on” and being the sole source of funding. Our government can deny Fox interviews, the British government can TURN OFF the BBC, gone, no more money, no more buildings, no more transmission towers, no more BBC. The BBC wouldn’t be able to retaliate because they wouldn’t exist anymore.
We single out the government because the government has police and armies and is just generally harder to get rid of than any private corporation. Just look at our current situation in America with a government that’s forcing insurance on us, won’t prosecute Black Panthers, and started bombing another country for no apparent reason without bother with any kind of a plan, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to reverse any of this for another year and a half. Corrupt and abusive governments are much more permanent than corporations.
The only reason the commercial situation now doesn’t allow shows to build audience is because we have so many choices. Our increase in power has caused the profit margins of running a TV network to drop so far (and often now it’s actually unprofitable) that they simply can’t afford to keep non-winners on the air. Sometimes victory has a price.
The lack of finished story arcs is the results of laziness in the writers room and bad producers trying to blackmail the network into a renewal. It’s not the system, it’s people doing a bad job of trying to game the system.
It should all be based on numbers. No matter where the money comes from there really isn’t a good to run a show that has no viewers. Without viewers it’s just wasted electricity in the transmitting tower. And actually nobody is looking for everyone, your average hit show today has around 10 million viewers, 1/32 of our population, it’s already only some people.
The BBC doesn’t collect the money, the government does, to great expense actually. The government can stop collecting that money, or even still collect it and stop handing it over. What do you think would happen to BBC funding if the British government just stopped sending around the patrol vans that look for TV radiation signatures to find people not paying the fee? And what with the economy the way it is, price of petrol and all, the government has a fine and perfectly workable excuse to do just that.
The government is not your friend, it is not your ally, it is not on your side, and it is almost never the answer. The more parts of your life that it is in charge of the more you work for it, which is exactly the opposite of what the founders set up.
Theoretically any government could turn any TV station off if they really wanted to. You're the one who is so paranoid about the power of the State and you don't accept that? Are there not attempts to force talk radio off on the grounds of "fairness"? It doesnt happen, either in the US or the UK because force is useless unless it can be applied. There is absolutely no way that the mass of the US population will wear a restriction on free speech of that magnitude, and neither will the UK population accept the same re the BBC. UK government could never just "TURN OFF" the BBC. You underestimate just how entrenched it is in the hearts of the nation. And rightly so too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCjjmYpjoN4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM&feature=player_embedded
We single out the government because the government has police and armies and is just generally harder to get rid of than any private corporation. Just look at our current situation in America with a government that’s forcing insurance on us, won’t prosecute Black Panthers, and started bombing another country for no apparent reason without bother with any kind of a plan, and there’s not a damn thing we can do to reverse any of this for another year and a half. Corrupt and abusive governments are much more permanent than corporations.
Or perhaps it just seems that way because governments and their actions are more visible. Governments come and go, but corporatism lasts forever. A president has four years, probably eight. But the director of a company can last for decades, and a corporate culture forever.
The only reason the commercial situation now doesn’t allow shows to build audience is because we have so many choices. Our increase in power has caused the profit margins of running a TV network to drop so far (and often now it’s actually unprofitable) that they simply can’t afford to keep non-winners on the air. Sometimes victory has a price.
It's astonishing how many people buy into this argument, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Have you ever wondered why you can access a thousand channels but still can't find anything worth watching? Simply, you don't have more choice, you have more of a selection. The fact that you can access zillions of channels doesn't matter because they all show the same programs, just at different times. So how is that "choice"?
And this is not some quirk - this is the inevitable result of having a system that chases mass appeal to the exclusion of everything else. Minority interests, of any type, are just ignored or pushed to the margins. Is that bad? Well yes, because everyone has some minority interest. The BBC produces loads of programs on very specialist subjects that I have no interest in at all, but it also produces one in ten that I find absolutely fascinating. And just now and again, I'll flip on a program about - eighteenth century french pottery or whatever? - and find it really interesting. It's all very well giving the people what they want, but how do they know what they want and will like unless they are given different options?
The lack of finished story arcs is the results of laziness in the writers room and bad producers trying to blackmail the network into a renewal. It’s not the system, it’s people doing a bad job of trying to game the system.
Nonsense. It's exactly a direct result of the system. Whether programs get cancelled or not if so fantastically important to the folks involved they will do anything to stop it from happening. Wouldn't you, if your livelihood depended on it?
It should all be based on numbers. No matter where the money comes from there really isn’t a good to run a show that has no viewers. Without viewers it’s just wasted electricity in the transmitting tower. And actually nobody is looking for everyone, your average hit show today has around 10 million viewers, 1/32 of our population, it’s already only some people.
The 2008 election result was all based on numbers, and see where that got you. Because ratings are so important in the US commercial TV world producers and program commissioners are very wary of taking chances. Innovation and creativity are actively discouraged by a total reliance on money and numbers. I'm not suggesting for one moment that shows that have no viewers should be run. That's a straw man argument. What I'm saying is that I would rather have one show that I really enjoyed and a couple that are "alright" and seven I have no interest in, than ten that I will put up with.
Theoretically yes, but it’s a lot easier when all of a network’s money comes from the government. You’re damn right I’m paranoid about the power of the State, anybody that isn’t paranoid about the power of the State needs to PAY $%^&ING ATTENTION. You’d be surprised what kind of restrictions population will not only tolerate but BEG for. Look up some of the freedoms America has lost, thrown away actually, in the name of the drug war. I’m not underestimating anything, you’re underestimating the plain facts of history.
Sorry but you’ve got it exactly backwards. Corporations are temporary, governments are forever. There’s not a single corporation in America that’s been here since the revolution. And no government in HISTORY has ever voluntarily given up power. Someday you just might have an evil nasty Soviet style government in the UK, and boy will they be happy that they already have control of TV and radio. Governments are much bigger and longer that 1 president, just look at hows little has actually changed from Bush to Obama.
They don’t all show the same programs. They might show programs that are similar, but they aren’t the same. And saying they are is just trying to win the argument with silly hyperbole.
There’s TONS of minority interest in the TV market. Heck just look at the network this very thread is about. They’re average program has 1 million viewers. That’s it, less than 1/3 of 1% of the population of America. You can’t get much more minority interest than that.
We’ve got tons of odd ball programs about subjects like 18th century French pottery, in the deep cable channels where they belong.
There’s no nonsense to it at all. Cliffhanger endings have been used to try to get the audience to blackmail the network into renewing since the earliest days of TV. I will now list for you every single time it’s worked, are you ready, pay close attention this is going by fast:
Jericho
And all Jericho managed to get renewed for was half a season to wrap it up. Any TV producer that tries the cliffhanger trick is trying to game the system in a way that’s well proven to NOT work. It’s lazy writing. People aren’t surprised when their TV shows get canceled, they know what the show costs, they know how much ad time in their show will have to sell for to make a profit, they know the ratings necessary to sell at that rate, and they know their ratings. Any idiot can put those numbers together by mid-season and say if the show will be renewed or canceled, that’s WHY these guys go the cliffhanger route in the first place, because they know the numbers are against them. When you get to that point the producer has 4 options:
flee
be a professional and keep plugging away
be nice to the audience and wrap it up
be a douche and try to get the audience to strong arm the network for them
Every one that takes option 4 is lazy. And they tend to have a hard time getting future jobs, because the networks don’t like producers that try to turn the audience against them.
The numbers aren’t always your friend. But the numbers are how things should be run. And really if Bush hadn’t sucked so bad at getting his message across 2008 could have gone differently, he poisoned the well for the GOP. Innovation and creativity happen all the time on American TV, lookup what’s going on with AMC these days: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead. This is all HOLY CRAP good TV. And it ain’t just there either, Starz has Spartacus and Camalot; USA has Burn Notice, Covert Affairs and Psych; A&E has The Glades; SyFy has Eureka and had BSG. Playing to the audience is kicking ass, AND doesn’t have to worry about a tyrannical government screwing it all up... at least not as much as the Beeb does.
Watching now ... Kind'a fun actually.
I saw on episode and I couldn’t take more of it after the first 15 minutes.. It makes the one with Gil Gerrad looks like a classic.
LOL! - It’s all they had back in 1939. It is kind’a funny when Buck takes off for Saturn and there are clouds in space along the way ;o)
True.. I also liked it how Buck quickly adjusted to the future real fast.. At least Buster did appear on the Buck as Brigadier Gordon.
Theoretically I agree, but practical experience seems to indicate it doesn't make a lot of difference. You complain that the BBC is "state-owned", but according to every post I've ever seen on Free Republic it is generally acknowledged that the US media is almost completely in the pocket of the left, and certainly almost totally supportative of the current administration. Conservative media outlets have been systematically marginalised, and there are concerted attempts to destroy even what is left!
I guess the different way we do things just means a different strategy is implemented by the Statists.
You’d be surprised what kind of restrictions population will not only tolerate but BEG for. Look up some of the freedoms America has lost, thrown away actually, in the name of the drug war.
Which is why you need to clearly set our the rights, responsibilities and restrictions for all parties. Which is essentially what the BBC charter is. It's like the US constitution of broadcasting!
I’m not underestimating anything, you’re underestimating the plain facts of history.
I'm not underestimating anything. If a tyrannical, elitist dictatorial government determined to completely filch the rights and liberties of the people ever came to power in the US (God forbid) do you really, honestly believe they are going to let legal nuances like "private ownership" stop them? And, excuse me, do you really think they are going to let the constitution stop them? It's a great document, but in the final analysis its words on a page. What's really important is the will of the people to support the principles that it outlines, not what it actually is.
Sorry but you’ve got it exactly backwards. Corporations are temporary, governments are forever. There’s not a single corporation in America that’s been here since the revolution. And no government in HISTORY has ever voluntarily given up power. Someday you just might have an evil nasty Soviet style government in the UK, and boy will they be happy that they already have control of TV and radio. Governments are much bigger and longer that 1 president, just look at hows little has actually changed from Bush to Obama.
That kind of depends on what you mean by "Government". If you want to define it broader than an administration, then I guess you are right.
They don’t all show the same programs. They might show programs that are similar, but they aren’t the same. And saying they are is just trying to win the argument with silly hyperbole.
What I meant by saying they are the same is that they are very derivative, not absolutely identical! To a certain extent, all TV programs do need to follow some set rules - but they also need to be innovative if they are going to be worthwhile. But innovation and experimentation are risky - and the accountants who run US TV don't like that.
There’s TONS of minority interest in the TV market. Heck just look at the network this very thread is about.
Yes let's look at SciFi, or ScyFi or whatever it is now. This was a channel set up to satisfy the minority (but still substantial) interest of science-fiction. How's that working out? They started off showing lots of the stuff, but slowly, gradually, they've moved away. At first it was a few shows from the allied field of fantasy, and then more horror - which they justified because a lot of it is now heavily techno-orientated, derived from cyberpunk and so on. Then they started showing wrestling, and then they changed their name (which stations do for one reason only, to alter image). Now there is hardly any sci-fi on it at all. Now, that MUST be a commercial decision. It is certainly not due to pressure from sci-fi fans. Put bluntly, they were not getting enough audiences from showing sci-fi, so they stopped doing it. And now they are little better than a thousand other small outfits on the rim of the US TV market.
Besides, even in its hey-day, SciFi did not actually make any sci-fi programs, they just bought it all in. They may have showcased the genre, but they never actually added to it.
They’re average program has 1 million viewers. That’s it, less than 1/3 of 1% of the population of America. You can’t get much more minority interest than that.
Except that it now no longer shows the minority interest programs it was set up to do. The low audience share of minority US TV channels has nothing to do with them supporting minority interests. It is almost all due to two factors. One, no-one has access to all channels. I don't know how many americans can even get SciFi but it is certainly nowhere near all of you. Secondly, and more importantly, there are so many TV channels that they divide the audience up. Because they are mostly all showing pretty much the same thing, it doesn't really matter to the audience whether they watch it on one or the other channel.
We’ve got tons of odd ball programs about subjects like 18th century French pottery, in the deep cable channels where they belong.
In other words, only if you specifically request them?
There’s no nonsense to it at all. Cliffhanger endings have been used to try to get the audience to blackmail the network into renewing since the earliest days of TV. I will now list for you every single time it’s worked, are you ready, pay close attention this is going by fast: Jericho And all Jericho managed to get renewed for was half a season to wrap it up. Any TV producer that tries the cliffhanger trick is trying to game the system in a way that’s well proven to NOT work. It’s lazy writing. People aren’t surprised when their TV shows get canceled, they know what the show costs, they know how much ad time in their show will have to sell for to make a profit, they know the ratings necessary to sell at that rate, and they know their ratings. Any idiot can put those numbers together by mid-season and say if the show will be renewed or canceled, that’s WHY these guys go the cliffhanger route in the first place, because they know the numbers are against them. When you get to that point the producer has 4 options: flee be a professional and keep plugging away be nice to the audience and wrap it up be a douche and try to get the audience to strong arm the network for them Every one that takes option 4 is lazy. And they tend to have a hard time getting future jobs, because the networks don’t like producers that try to turn the audience against them.
If it doesn't work, why do they keep trying it? Also you forgot one other way they try and get round it. If the audience figures fall below what cost of production calls for, they can reduce cost of production. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make good quality television cheaply, and that usually starts a spiral that leads to even lower ratings.
Innovation and creativity happen all the time on American TV, lookup what’s going on with AMC these days: Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead. This is all HOLY CRAP good TV. And it ain’t just there either, Starz has Spartacus and Camalot; USA has Burn Notice, Covert Affairs and Psych; A&E has The Glades; SyFy has Eureka and had BSG.
Oh, there are some excellent US TV programs, I've never denied that. Unfortunately there is also a huge amount of dross. This is perfectly normal for everyone. The economics of films and TV programs (and books for that matter) are that they are high-risk, high-reward. Most TV programs and films flop. If one in ten is a smash hit success you are doing well. The "hit rate" for US TV programs however, is exceedingly low.
However, the US still pretty much controls the AV industry. Countries like India and Japan actually make more TV and films than you do, but no-one sells such a high proportion of their domestic product abroad as the US does. I would argue that the good US programs are more a function of just how much TV the US churns out. There's so much that some good ones are bound to appear occasionally! And of course, if you throw enough money at even a derivative idea it will probably work on at least one level, at least for a while. Eventually though, Star Trek comes up with Enterprise, and Star Gate comes up with Universe.
As long as Rush is out there complaints that the media is all left and people to the right are marginalized are silly. Rush is at the top of the revenue heap, clearly the right can hold its own. Of course even if it was true putting the media under government control isn’t the right answer. Remember the quote from George Washington: “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” A fearful master that is force simply should not be in charge of a nation’s mass communication medium.
I’d rather the government have to take the extra step of taking control of the media than it already be gifted to the government. That buys us at least a couple of hours anyway.
There is no dictionary definition of “government” that restricts it to one administration. Most of the people in decision making positions in the government are there through multiple administrations. The FCC still has many employees that were hired during the Clinton administration, there’s a reason things tend to change so little from one administration to the next.
Things aren’t nearly as derivative as folks like to think. Especially once you get into the deep cable networks. The broadcast networks tend to be copycats because failed experiments cost them a lot of money. Cable networks have lower overhead, pay everybody less, and experiments are easier to green light. There’s a big difference in the risk a company that NEEDS shows to have 10 million viewers and a network that’s HAPPY with 2 million viewers is willing to take. Name me 4 other shows like Spartacus, you can’t. BSG, the same. Walking Dead, forget about it.
Actually SyFy changed their name for a very good reason, in America at least the term “sci-fi” (in various spellings) is in common use and cannot be trademarked. The fact is the original people could have never named it that, took a few waves of owners to finally get somebody with enough lawyers to notice. But during that time anybody could have made a “sci-fi” press or movie label to imply relationship with the network and the network wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it. Look at the history of the X rating, same thing could have happened.
Meanwhile though the channel has been around almost 20 years and still only has an average viewership of 1.2 million. Can’t be much more minority in its service than that. I’d say today is their hey day, certainly as far as ratings and revenue.
OK now you’re just not making sense, if having a minority audience isn’t supporting a minority interest then nothing is and your whole phrase is meaningless. They might be supporting the minority interest YOU want them to, but they ARE supporting a minority interest and are NOT pulling for a mass audience. This is proven in their own numbers. SyFy is a channel that has no dreams or intention of ever gunning for American Idol numbers, they are not a channel for the masses, they are a channel for a minority, that IS supporting a minority interest.
You don’t have to specifically request the shows, heck you don’t even have to specifically request the channels. American cable is packaged, if you get the “really extended” package (whatever they call it today) you’re gonna wind up with all kinds of goofball channels like Discovery Investigation, Independent Film Channel, and Chiller. Then you just have to be bored and looking at the guide and walla 18th century French pottery.
They keep trying for much the same reason their shows failed in the first place: they aren’t actually good at their job. Poor writers like to go to the same well all the time, so when they find out their show is failing they go the blackmail route, and fail.
The problem with reducing cost of production is you probably already have half a season in the can at the old cost. Then you have the general cost of doing business broadcast network blow a certain amount of money just turning the lights on. And actually you can make good TV for cheap, look at B5, 1 million an episode, very cheap for the time ESPECIALLY for SF. Most of the really good TV on now is made cheaply, that’s why it’s on the cable networks with no budgets. Actually in many way I think low budgets help product quality, it makes them think through what they’re doing more, and it makes them write their way out of problems instead of FXing it. There’s a reason why the better the Alien FX the worse the Alien movie is.
The signal to noise ratio of the entertainment world has always been skewed to noise no matter where the funding is coming from. There are a lot of reasons for it, but it really boils down to the average person has $%^&&* taste. That’s why Madonna sells more records than Tony Carey, that’s why Dominoes rules the pizza business, that’s why Bud rules the beer business, and that’s why the vast majority of TV is crap.
There are a few conservatives out there fighting the good fight, and certainly the advent of the internet has helped considerably (these boards being a prime example). However, the traditional media is unquestionably dominated by the left. I don't believe that is some vast plot to undermine capitalism, apple pie and the American dream - I think you have to be a special kind of paranoid to believe that - but what I do think is true is that all these journos and talking heads all come from much the same background, all went to the same liberal Universities and did the same courses in Journalism and Media studies. They all have much the same kind of ideas, intermingle socially, are often married into each other's families - it's a cosy little club, and it doesn't welcome outside opinions. When I say marginilised I mean that conservative-orientatated presenters and journalists are regularly blackballed, passed over for promotion, and generally excluded. And its nothing you can prove, but for sure it goes on.
I don't believe and I have argued that the BBC is not under the government's control. Certainly no more than the "independent" TV organisations operating in the UK. Your argument seems to be it gets money from the government, therefore it must be under its thumb. On the same level you could argue the US army is a major threat to your liberty. The fact that it isn't is due to various constitutional safeguards, and in the same way, the BBC has its charter.
I’d rather the government have to take the extra step of taking control of the media than it already be gifted to the government. That buys us at least a couple of hours anyway.
Bound to make all the difference.
There is no dictionary definition of “government” that restricts it to one administration. Most of the people in decision making positions in the government are there through multiple administrations. The FCC still has many employees that were hired during the Clinton administration, there’s a reason things tend to change so little from one administration to the next.
It may also be due to the fact that administrations come and go, but America's situation and stategic objectives remain much the same.
Things aren’t nearly as derivative as folks like to think. Especially once you get into the deep cable networks. The broadcast networks tend to be copycats because failed experiments cost them a lot of money. Cable networks have lower overhead, pay everybody less, and experiments are easier to green light. There’s a big difference in the risk a company that NEEDS shows to have 10 million viewers and a network that’s HAPPY with 2 million viewers is willing to take. Name me 4 other shows like Spartacus, you can’t. BSG, the same. Walking Dead, forget about it.
Cable is better for sure, but come on. BSG is itself a sequel, and the original was a Star Wars rip off.
OK now you’re just not making sense, if having a minority audience isn’t supporting a minority interest then nothing is and your whole phrase is meaningless. They might be supporting the minority interest YOU want them to, but they ARE supporting a minority interest and are NOT pulling for a mass audience. This is proven in their own numbers. SyFy is a channel that has no dreams or intention of ever gunning for American Idol numbers, they are not a channel for the masses, they are a channel for a minority, that IS supporting a minority interest.
Nonsense! "Having a minority audience isn’t supporting a minority interest"? What kind of talk is that? Just because not many people watch does not neccesarily mean it is aupporting a minority! That might just means it isn't very popular. By that argument a main channel series that only attracted half-a-million viewers would be "supporting a minority interest". Supporting minority interests is about showing specialist programs, surely. And ScyFy certainly isnt doing that. Its supposed to be a sci-fi channel and it doesnt show any sci-fi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.