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.

Sunday, studdy Sunday

I almost never watch Sunday talk shows, even though I probably should as they’re the smartest thing worth watching on Sunday afternoons. It’s hard not to take advantage of the week’s most ideal do-nothing day. Apparently if I did, though, I would notice that only about 135 out of 1,000 appearances on these shows are made by women and that this is a form of systematic sexism, according to unnamed “women’s advocates.”

Three years of ridiculous assertions by more extreme feminists my own age has made me skeptical of most accusations of systematic sexism. This one is founded on the belief that “network bookers have a men-in-suits mind-set that leads to familiar faces appearing over and over.” Unless internal network communication insisted on the men-in-suits look because women were too something, attacks like this are too easy to deny.

Sunday afternoon is generally when current lawmakers – as opposed to just commentators, political machinists or former lawmakers – have the time to make their cases. It’s also when the more respectable hosts – Candy Crowley on CNN, Chris Wallace on Fox, David Gregory on NBC – run the discussion as opposed to, say, everyone else on Fox. It’s been a boys’ club almost every time I’ve bothered to look. So what needs to be done, if anything?

Said advocates want the split of men and women on Sunday shows “in numbers more closely approximating their percentage of society as a whole.” This would require Congress to be structured in those numbers, and it is not. I concede that it’s suspicious why committee chairwomen like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Environment and Public Works) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) (Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence) haven’t made as many appearances as their positions warrant. But I won’t blame the networks without proof.

One option for alleviating this problem would be for the networks to post online polls with brief (five-word) descriptions of upcoming topics, asking viewers to name the (available, related) interviewee they want to see. Since only these advocates seem to really care, they would be able to flood the polls. The only other option is for networks to demonstrate that they invite a lot of women who turn them down, which is their main excuse.

What it comes down to, it seems, is women objecting to the way viewers perceive them on TV – as less persuasive and more decorative, as the article concludes. The only way to fix that is to distract people by talking circles around them. And maybe wearing a boring black suit.

Maybe centrists and moderates have a problem with YOU

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 New York Times commentator David Brooks. I have heard more than one person say that centrists like myself don’t stand for anything, are wishy-washy, etc. In this 26-second clip from The News Hour on PBS (possibly the most stereotypically centrist channel on the planet), Brooks implied not only all that, but that we’re just in it for the money.

After a cursory overview of Brooks’s own political views, I had to chuckle. How could he not call himself a centrist when he was so over the map – early supporter of the Iraq War, admirer of both President Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), generally to the left of Republicans when it comes to social issues, quoted as saying he “liked the idea of bankers running the world”? Perhaps later in the show, he kicked himself in the head for what he obviously considers a grave miscalculation, but somehow I doubt it.

Nonetheless, from this clip, I gleaned the following arguments against centrists:

1. We don’t have “coherent philosophies.”
2. We can’t articulate why the above is good.
3. Because of this, we are more likely to become lobbyists than serious political thinkers, since you get more money from politicians by being non-ideological.

Not having many pals who are either academics or lobbyists, I cannot address the third point except to point out that it is a hasty generalization. But I will address the first two points at the same time. Take notes, Brooksy, because this is important.

Centrists espouse the following core principles: that good ideas can be found anywhere and from anyone; that almost no political belief is practicable 100% of the time; that the best solution to a problem is the utilitarian one; and that discussion, debate, and disagreement are worthwhile for their own sake. You have just seen me articulate all of these, and I think I did a pretty good job. Any PBS hosts care to comment? I’m available for interviews.

If you would like more proof of the above, Mr. Brooks, stay tuned for when I announce the date of my and Adam’s trip to Minneapolis next summer. If you’re in town then, perhaps we can all do lunch.

Sarah Palin’s Fox News debut in 3 minutes

The following is a fictionalized transcript of former Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) inaugural interview as an analyst for Fox News on The O’Reilly Factor. I watched the whole thing and it was almost exactly like this.

BO: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Welcome to da Factor and thanks for da ratings.

SP: And I’m Sarah Palin. Read my book.

BO: So, Governor, dat Obama sure is liberal.

SP: I totally agree, Bill. I mean, read my book, that health care of plan of his is bad for the country, and everyone knows it.

BO: Oh, yeah. It’s real bad.

SP: Bad as hell. Read my book. We need jobs, doncha know. Profit motive 4-eva.

BO: Well, we ain’t gonna get jobs until dat nutbar Pelosi leaves.

SP: I agree again, Bill. I betcha she’s even more liberal than he is.

BO: Yeah? What makes ya say dat?

SP: Read my book. I dunno, just a feelin’. 

BO: Good enough. Now, da media, some top advisers from da McCain campaign, and many American voters think you’re stupid. Why do you suppose dat is?

SP: Cuz a) they’re liberal and b) they haven’t read my book. I’m real smart, ya know. Last night I found Baghdad on a map.

BO: You are smart! Take dat, far-left media!

SP: Man, Bill, this agreein’ is so much fun. We should do this more often.

BO: Sure. Let’s practice right now. I think Obama attacks his opponents too much.

SP: I agree! I think taxes suck. Obama’s gonna raise ‘em, ya know. Read my book.

BO: You know, I also have a book –

SP: Back to me. I think Fox News is the greatest 24-hour news channel in the world and all other 24-hour news channels are run by little girls. Read my book.

BO: I agree. Read our books, Obama’s poll numbers are dropping because he’s liberal, I own prime-time so fuck all y’all, read our books some more. Aaaaaand scene.

SP: I’m so happy to be on TV!

(they make out)

Fail of the Year 2009

On the closest Saturday to New Year’s Day, I will bestow this award upon the past year’s ultimate fail. This was posted on May 9 as “MSNBC cuts the mustard, literally.”

. . . This is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. It might feel like a stretch to say that this is the biggest fail of all time, given that this is only the tenth “Fail of the Week” column I’ve written in the history of The Future American, but I didn’t know until now that idiocy of this magnitude was humanly possible. . . .

This week’s fail was brought to you by Sean Hannity. And, honestly, if I wanted to, I could say that every week; I’ve got tons of material to work with already. The man is punditry’s answer to Spencer Pratt. But now, after being unable to convince America that waterboarding isn’t torture or that President Obama just lurves terrorists, socialists, and maybe even telemarketers, Shanny is hearkening back to the old days of senseless Francophobia by leading the attack on Obama’s choice of burger topping. Apparently Dijon mustard is up there with beluga caviar and foie gras on the list of Foods That Are Too Fancy for Average Americans, and the only reason for someone to order it is to look “fancy,” not because they think it’s tasty.

Sadly, it’s not just him; conservative blogger William Jacobson is also on the pro-plain-mustard side of Dijongate (yes, in their minds, it’s of “-gate” proportions) and is accusing MSNBC of deliberately editing out Obama’s order of Dijon on his burger. A story about the President and VP of the United States going out for a burger is already lacking in newsworthiness; maybe MSNBC’s editors wanted to keep the clip down to a reasonable length, and pegged the Dijon request as, dare I say it, pork. But that would be too sensible for Jacobson, who is convinced that MSNBC is in cahoots with Obama to try and make him appear as average as possible.

Just imagine the reaction if they find out that Obama uses Charmin to wipe his ass instead of generic TP! THE PRESIDENT IS AN ELITIST, DIJON-EATING, CHARMIN-WIPING SNOB! MAN THE LIFEBOATS!!!

I’m going to say what every other sensible American has said in response to this so-called story. Nobody has the energy to care. We care about the president’s policies, and occasionally some stuff about his family, and that’s it. If you have nothing intelligent to say about those things, get off the air while you still have your dignity. That’s right, I’m talking to you, Shanny.