The revolution will be streamed

Who would have thought that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would take the lead in Congress on channel-buying rights? This not being a high national priority – by congressional standards – I figured he’d have his hands full with immigration, background checks, the budget, Benghazi, et cetera. I suppose he was looking for an issue on which the only opposition would come from special interests that nobody likes. Here’s what we know about the bill he’s writing:

• It would allow customers to pay for individual channels, at their own discretion.
• It would bar cable companies from “bundling” multiple networks they own, instead requiring them to offer each individually.
• It would end the “sports blackout” rule, allowing cable channels to air sports events that are blacked out on local stations.
• It would “boost” Aereo, the web service that streams live TV online, by yanking broadcast licenses from companies that move highly rated programming from over-the-air stations (from which Aereo streams) to cable, which is what they vowed to do in reaction to Aereo.

We haven’t had any official comment from the cable lobbies yet. The companies they represent benefit from channel bundling, even if nobody watches. (Who in Canada watches this?) Here’s what we can expect:

Both industries have argued that the government should not micromanage how they offer their products to customers and that bundling can promote diverse offerings.

And here’s a taste of what we can expect from the National Football League (NFL), which may argue publicly against the sports blackout provision:

. . . the National Football League . . . requires broadcasters to black out games if the local team does not sell out the stadium. The rule is meant to encourage fans to buy tickets to see the game live.

Of these, the only compelling argument is the one concerning government micromanagement. Nobody cares about “diverse offerings,” and few people can afford to attend home games on a regular basis.

Cable meets the definition of interstate commerce, so a constitutional counter-argument is doubtful. It’s one thing to regulate against anything unsafe, unhealthy or fraudulent; it’s another to regulate against anything unnecessary and expensive. While millions still rely on cable, more and more households dump cable for Netflix and the like everyday. If the cable companies were smart, they’d subject channels to the risks of supply and demand on their own. But the government can’t reverse every stupid decision in the country, not even for the sake of consumers. Had someone introduced this bill in the 90s, it would have meant more.

The CNN dilemma: A brand loyalist’s view

When I was younger, three stories introduced me to CNN’s brand: then-President Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, the war in Kosovo and 9/11. From there I developed the understanding that CNN was the “serious” 24-hour news channel, an understanding that was later bolstered by Fox News (loud, visual, personality-driven, talks about stupid left-wingers a lot) and MSNBC (loud, visual, personality-driven, talks about Fox News a lot). Fast forward to 2013, where rumors abound of a possible re-launch of Crossfire in an effort to boost sagging ratings.

What the hell happened? Sure, people still turn to CNN in droves for “big news”; their coverage of elections and extreme weather, plus their investigative reporting, remain unmatched among the main three cable news networks. But for everyday prime-time news, they’ve got serious problems. Their solutions so far have been to boost their online interactivity (good); play up sports, entertainment and tech stories (bad); and hire Piers Morgan (WTF?). Clearly they haven’t resulted in a massive turn-around.

My hope was renewed somewhat when they announced the hiring of Jake Tapper, then ABC’s chief White House correspondent and highly respected by everyone. I figured they would give him an hour somewhere between 6 and 10 p.m. and have him delve deeply into the political stories of the day. Instead, his show, The Lead, turned out to be a variety news show akin to  Erin Burnett OutFront, in a much worse time slot. Then they tried (Get to) The Point, a copy of Fox’s RedEye with a much dumber name. And now Crossfire, as if Jon Stewart didn’t definitively end it all by his lonesome.

At this point CNN has two options: continue trying to attract absolutely everyone, or back-track and try to keep (or, in some cases, win back) the “classic” CNN viewer, who wanted the facts (that mattered) presented by people who knew what they were talking about and had no evident ideological/partisan masters. Considering the apparent dearth of actual experts on cable news, this would certainly be welcome to industry watchers. Unfortunately, most people are neither industry watchers, nor CNN brand loyalists like me.

In many ways, CNN’s problems parallel those of the Republican Party, also struggling with a fickle base and a bad reputation, if not outright shunning, among others. But the Republican Party’s job is to rack up votes; they have more to gain from expanding their tent. If CNN’s efforts to expand theirs was working, we would not be having this discussion. They must accept the reality of the niche media market and restore their niche, not throw Fox/MSNBC rip-offs at the wall and hoping one will stick.

As for Crossfire: If John Avlon and/or Margaret Hoover hosts, and it includes subject experts in each segment to tell the wingers how wrong they both are, I’ll bite.

So, who wants to talk about boobs?

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in collaboration with the U.S. Supreme Court. I’m sure many of you wanted me to mention the high court in this week’s fail over something completely different, but sadly for you, that was not meant to be. This is about FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in which the FCC has found itself barred from fining Fox over this. (Yes, I’m showing the uncensored photo. What’re you gonna do about it? Besides run to the bathroom to vomit, I mean – why would anyone do that to their nipple?)

The court ruled that a previous FCC rule which exempted “fleeting expletives” from fines had been changed without Fox’s knowledge, which, under the Due Process Clause, keeps them safe from this fine in particular. Since the FCC has since been very clear about the change, however, there will be no more second chances. A brief flash of tit during a live televised performance and you’re doomed, possibly to the tune of $550,000. But that’s OK – the FCC is clear about it now! Well, that makes every single rule they pull out of their collective arse just dandy, doesn’t it?

No. It doesn’t. Look at this sort of thing from the perspective of the person in the control room. No one at Fox expected the tit, and if you conducted an informal straw poll, I’m pretty sure no one would have asked for it. These people are often too busy lining up shots and building graphics even to pay much attention to what’s happening on the screen. This, they would have noticed. But why are they the ones being fined? Why not our Ms. Jackson herself? Why not Tenderflake? It’s their fault.

My point is that what ends up happening on the screen is a matter of individual responsibility, be it the person tasked with spelling things correctly in the banners, or the person who’s actually being taped. To fine the network for a completely unexpected and, in this case, unavoidable error (on their part, anyway) is sheer lunacy. I’m not sure if the principle of malice aforethought applies to obscenity laws, but there was none here.

I love this: “. . . Roberts said that calling it a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ when Justin Timberlake ripped away part of Jackson’s bustier ‘strained the credulity of the public.’” Yeah, it sure did. It was all his fault. Fine him. He can afford it five times over and he sucks at music anyway.

Why we don’t need cameras in the courtroom

I’m not sure if this is at all possible to quantify, but I can’t help but wonder if legislative proceedings would sound a little less ridiculous if they weren’t televised. Although my perspective is mostly Canadian and we have a Question Period, which would probably sound ridiculous with or without the cameras. (To advocates of introducing the concept to America: Believe me, it’s not as valuable as you think.) But what about Supreme Court proceedings? Specifically, the most-followed proceedings of this or the previous administration?

The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), have requested that the court allow live TV cameras in the courtroom as they hand down their decision on Obamacare, on the ground that “the issues in the case are as important and consequential as any in recent court history.” They said as much in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, which has gone unanswered as of yet, but I’m guessing it’ll be a no. Predictably, the networks have made the same request.

From a TV perspective, the clip of Roberts announcing the ruling would be a great visual, although it would get very repetitive since all the major networks will be leading with this story when it happens. Does anyone really need to hear the same person droning the same sentences on different channels, five times a day (each)? This isn’t even an issue of getting the clip first, as it would be live. Try competing to tweet it first instead. That might be interesting.

Anyone who believes that cameras in the courtroom have any necessity for the average American is deluding themselves about how the media works nowadays. It used to be that TV and radio were the only ways to get breaking news. That is no longer true. As long as they can get the information at roughly the same time as everyone else, it doesn’t matter which medium it comes through. At least, not to the consumer.

This, of course, benefits politicians more than it benefits the networks or anyone watching them. It’s a good clip for campaign ads. It’s something they can send to everyone on their e-mail lists. It’s something they can quote endlessly on Sunday talk shows as some form of validation. The party who gets their way can brag about it; the party that doesn’t can bash the court and vow to fight another day. That’s all. The level of public interest in Obamacare doesn’t justify it.

Keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court has worked for this many years, and I see no compelling reason to change that now. It’s an issue of decorum as much as it’s an issue of who it’s really being done for.

Television is (almost) dead; long live television

I want you to think back to the last time you watched a locally produced TV program, or interacted with the station behind the program in any way. Did you watch a video of an anchor blooper on YouTube? Did you go to the station’s website to skim the headlines? Did you wish the station had a smartphone app so you could get that same news while standing on the subway? Did you upload a video of your own and e-mail it to them in the hopes of inclusion?

If you answered yes to any of these questions and not “Did you watch the whole thing on TV?,” you are one of the reasons why this station should consider auctioning off its broadcast spectrum. On Friday, Congress is expected to allow the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to auction off TV airwaves to wireless companies, which would raise an estimated $25 billion. $15 billion of that would fund the payroll tax cut extension we discussed yesterday. Another $1.75 billion would be available to the broadcasters themselves.

The above link makes liberal use of quotes from Dennis Wharton, EVP of the National Association of Broadcasters, who points out that advertising revenues are coming back and these companies are less worried about their economic future than they used to be. Their concerns are operational: How can they sustain themselves if they can’t get a TV signal? And even if they continue operating while giving up airwaves, as spectrum sharing agreements would allow, how will they be able to deliver their content to mobile digital devices as planned?

I’m afraid I can’t completely sympathize with him. First of all, emerging technologies could make that less of a problem in the very near future, and broadcasters would be wise to get on those bandwagons ASAP. Second of all, they might also want to get on the bandwagon of all-mobile content: livecasting programs online, pre-taping feature programs for download, driving viewership through social media. It’s not only possible, it’s becoming necessary.

That $1.75 billion could pay for a lot of app development and the latest 4G devices. There is no better time for a technology whose sustainability was already in question to modernize with consumers. If I took away one thing from college, it’s that content rarely dies – it just changes platforms. The sooner broadcasters realize the inherent opportunity in that lesson, the better.

Having run out of commentary on this issue, I present you with some of the best anchor bloopers available. What we’ve learned: No profanity until the screen goes black; don’t be casual about death; witty banter is best avoided; look at the woman’s face.

And you thought the other O’Donnell was weird

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by former Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (R-DE), she who not only evades or refuses “gotcha” questions, but leaves the questioner in the lurch in doing so. Let’s just say that when L. Brent Bozell calls your actions beyond indefensible, bizarre, enough to make an ass of yourself, nonsensical, and bearing a whiff of buffoonery . . . they really are. (Although, I must admit, reading Bozell’s take on an attempted conservative darling was music to my eyes.)

As you surely know by now, O’Donnell walked off Piers Morgan Tonight (I don’t care what any y’all say, NOBODY can replace Larry King) after Morgan asked her if she had committed “lust in her heart,” which she defines as adultery. Do we want to know? Not really. Was it an unfair question? My theory is, if she put it in her book, it’s something she doesn’t mind if her mother sees, so it’s acceptable on TV. Not to her.

Working on a talk show myself since last Tuesday has given me some extra insight into why this was, for lack of a better term, a major dick move. Part of my job is to book guests for each episode and see to it that everyone involved with the taping knows who they are, when they’re on and where they’ll be taping from. If someone walks off (and nobody has), we can fill the space with a longer interview with another guest, or clips from past shows. But our show is pre-taped, and Morgan’s is live. His crew would have extra scrambling to do.

In any event, O’Donnell has only damaged herself by refusing to answer some very simple, albeit pointless, questions. She has proven herself to be either incapable or unwilling to handle an uncomfortable situation. She can’t hold her own against a verbal challenge. She’s probably going to rail against the mainstream media for days after this, and only former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) has enough of a back-up plan to do that successfully. If O’Donnell runs for anything again, this will haunt her. (Not that she’s unaccustomed to haunting.)

Oh, to remember that day in college when we PR majors did those on-camera tough-interview simulations. That was the best class ever. She should have joined us. She might have learned a thing or two.

Bring back Firing Line!

If you haven’t watched the interview between Fox News’s Chris Wallace and The Daily Show‘s Jon Stewart, do it NOW. It is one of the best interviews I’ve ever seen, not just because Stewart owned Wallace, but because he made a point about the “old” news media (newspapers, talk radio, TV) that so few people seem to notice. The problem isn’t that it’s biased toward a political ideology; the problem is the pro-sensationalism, pro-laziness ideology shared by the media as a whole.

Sure, there are ideologically tilted media outlets. Fox News vs. MSNBC. National Review vs. The Nation. Jon Voight vs. Rosie O’Donnell. Rush Limbaugh vs. Mike Malloy. The list goes on. But to make the case that, in this setting, liberalism triumphs over conservatism, or vice-versa, would require one to catalog every politically biased moment they can dig up and compare the sizes of the liberal and conservative columns. Many people get book deals for doing little more than that. Yawn.

I could complain about the absence of nominally centrist voices in the media, but it’s kind of fun to be the minority. And for the ranks of centrist commentators to grow to winger proportions would be to put them on the path toward uniformity and pack mentality. The ability to respect multiple sides of an argument should be a defining characteristic of all commentators, regardless of their own abiding beliefs.

But consider what those arguments tend to be about. Almost every news media provider you can think of is guilty of preferring to discuss political gossip and ideological warfare over the merits of current policy issues. The more blatantly political programming has a habit of having the interviewer and the subject agreeing with each other for 10 minutes, if one isn’t hammering the other. It’s only marginally more sophisticated than ice hockey.

If you want to see what the alternative looks like, here are two clips from Firing Line, a PBS show formerly hosted by William F. Buckley, one discussing philosophy and the other discussing legislation. If you think the lack of soundbites and emotion makes them boring I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Buckley may have been a conservative, but his mission with this show was to encourage new thoughts, not validate old ones.

I can respect that the 24-hour nature of the media means you need to get the story fast, but reserve that behavior for the local prime-time news, not the “discussion” shows. Real discussion takes more preparation.

You, sir, are no John Avlon

It appears I’m one of very few CNN viewers who actually enjoy prime-time commentary series Parker Spitzer. I cannot think of another program on any of the major networks that gives such a slot to an avowed centrist, in this case, co-host Kathleen Parker. But because she is not quite as fiery as her partner, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) (whom I call “Spritzer” because of . . . well, you know), she is the one who might be getting the axe, according to an as-yet-unconfirmed rumor.

In the episodes I’ve seen, Spritzer has sounded like your typical Democratic Party mouthpiece, and rarely, if ever, anything but. Occasionally, he has said something so easy to shut down that I’ve wanted, literally, to jump into Parker’s skin and shut it for her. That’s an unfortunate trend among the small but growing number of centrist commentators in the U.S. In print, they would seem more intellectually formidable than their winger counterparts; in the sound bite-based world of television, they lack a certain fighting spirit.

This can be improved upon if rank-and-file centrists call for it. But if this is more than just idle chatter, Parker is being booted before she has the opportunity to try. Why should she be punished for saying what she feels like saying? She’s not speaking through a filter the way Spritzer always seems to be, and this is a bad thing? According to whom?

What I would love to see are more centrist pundits of the John Avlon (also of CNN) variety. He’s not an unyielding fire-breather of the sort you might see on MSNBC or Fox, but he’s certainly a fighter for what he believes in, and there’s a deadpan tone in his writing that always makes him interesting to read. He should be the centrist with a show. Here’s the quickest way to do that: If you’re going to dump anyone, dump Spritzer.

Yes. Dump him. Not Parker. Dump him and replace him with Avlon. To do the opposite and dump Parker for a more conservative co-host would be just like the networks that profit off two versions of the same raw, unnecessary partisanship. This would be especially detrimental for CNN, which prides itself on objective thinking. Put Avlon in the seat next to Parker, get the No Labels crowd out to watch, and let the party begin.

A show with a pair of centrists would be endlessly entertaining, because you can never predict who they’ll agree with or go after, including each other. Only people who don’t like thinking would prefer a show with the same talking points regurgitated over and over again (cough). As for Spritzer, I hear the Oprah Winfrey Network is hiring. Maybe he can give advice to cuckolded wives.

Countdown to the ratings slump

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Keith Olbermann. Personally, I have never held any delusions that he – along with several other MSNBC hosts, specifically Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough – was any less politically biased, in terms of ideology, party or both, than anyone on Fox News. But I was able to go a bit easier on him because his statements were much more reasoned. Why couldn’t he have applied those reasoning skills to his off-screen political activity? Tsk tsk, Keith.

As you are by now aware, Olbermann was indefinitely suspended from MSNBC for donating to three Democratic candidates. Those lucky winners were Senate candidate Jack Conway (D-KY) and Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Such donations are nearly impossible to approve at the network. This rule says MSNBC is not as officially biased as some conservatives may allege; the hosts have their own agendas to push, as distinct from Fox, the brass of which I would bet encourages donations to Republicans.

(For my journalism major friends who are worried that I’m drifting into innuendo: The article points out that Fox’s parent company donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, and FNC president Roger Ailes has a long history as a consultant to Republican candidates. I didn’t just pull that out of my ass.)

I’m giving the fail to Olbermann himself because he shot a successful punditry career to shit by breaking a rule that’s not at all hard to obey. Adam, who was a fan of his up until recently, ceased to be as much of a fan for that reason. But I’m wondering why Olbermann was the first of the current crop of MSNBC commentators to get canned. If it’s so easy for them to find out what he’s been doing with his money, surely an examination of Maddow’s and Scarborough’s spending is in order.

And, really, is it such a crime for any of them to do such a thing? Anyone who can’t tell within five minutes how these people view the political scene would have to be a complete moron. Making a donation is just par for the course. Has it occurred to them how much viewership they’ll lose with this move? That would be a huge price to pay for a personal $7,200.

The View isn’t rosy from here

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by that episode of The View will Bill O’Reilly on it. The fail is neither his nor that of co-hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg; the entire episode took on a failtastic life of its own after a few minutes. Of course, I may be biased since anything with O’Reilly or Behar in it automatically racks up 1,000 fail points around here, with a 500-point bonus if it involves both of them.

By now you’ve probably heard the story, but here’s a quick refresher summary: O’Reilly says “Muslims killed us on 9/11,” hence his opposition to building a mosque two blocks away. (I’ve detailed my feelings on that, so we won’t get into them again.) Behar calls him a “pinhead,” which is generally his own word. Goldberg uses an unspecified expletive against him. Behar is horribly offended and walks off set with Goldberg in tow.  Barbara Walters calls everyone out. O’Reilly apologizes. They come back.

For anyone with designs on hosting a live show on which the discussions may get heated, here’s a tip: At some point, inevitably, someone will say something you disagree with, and it may offend your sensibilities. You will do your credibility no favors at all by removing yourself from the conversation. It displays a weakness of the worst kind. My technique is always to fight it out until I get the last word, and never to lapse into name-calling or screaming. Expletives, yes. But name-calling, not likely.

As for O’Reilly, who was there to promote his latest book, Making O’Reilly Not Call You a Pinhead Without Really Trying (not the real title, but should have been), his fallacy was to say “Muslims.” “Muslim extremists” would have been a much more accurate statement. His other line – “Listen to me, because you’ll learn something” – couldn’t have been more arrogant if he’d tried. But those are the sorts of things we’ve come to expect of O’Reilly, and he’s not going to drop it because it seems to sell books. (If you haven’t watched his show, that’s all he cares about. He also sells hats.)

The only person who wins in this debacle is Walters. She told the women they were wrong to walk offstage and told O’Reilly he was wrong to say what he said. Nothing is more amusing than telling both sides of an argument how stupid they’re being. I admit that I envy Walters for being in that position on network TV, while I have to stick to my position on this blog. I want to be her intern.