Hope and Journalism Are Not Dead. Just ask Sorkin.

"The Newsroom" concluded its second season.  If this is like the last break after season one, it will be just 43 weeks before we see season three.  

Show creator Aaron Sorkin did for news what he did for government in "The West Wing."   He painted a picture of an ideal world of virtuous people doing what they would be doing in an ideal world where pride, service to the public and professionalism still reign.  And he makes it fun to watch.  I lost my youthful idealism.  Aaron Sorkin never lost his and I appreciate that.

Some have pointed out flaws in the writing and storyline of "The Newsroom."  This is still a rare show that assumes the audience is not dopey. The show hopes that the audience has not become so overwhelmed by the cynicism that cable news offers that its viewers can accept the idea of hope.  

While its realism has been severely doubted by those that actually do this for a living, a relief from cynicism and a reassertion of journalism as a profession that needs to reattain its position as a respected and truthful industry is very welcome. 

While star Jeff Daniels tweeted that the show will be back for season three and HBO hinted the same, Sorkin has not committed.  Come on Aaron.  43 weeks from now, I will need the recharge in my faith.

So, has Facebook made us less human?

In the movie "Network", Howard Beall asked the rhetorical question, "What's so bad about dehumanization?"  Like so many issues raised by that movie 47 years ago, this question is relevant today.  We have our lives defined by social media, imitated by AI and vilified by any that thing in ways contrary to what we think.  No matter what we think.  

We are commodities. Corporations break us down into demographic and psychographic categories being judged by our marketing attractiveness.  Our government breaks us down into categories based on the degree of national threat we pose, based on our digital communication.  We are categorized.  We always were but now what we buy, where we shop, what we say, what we view online, what we say online---is all being scrutinized by someone who doesn't know or care about us.

So, what's so bad about dehumanization?  We will go to work today or look for work today, care about our families and complain about the deficiencies in our government and take for granted those things in our government that do work.  We are going to have the same day we had 47 years ago.  Except our privacy is being compromised and we are aware of it.  Have we truly lost our freedom and have our lives materially changed due to all this information being tracked, categorized and shared?  The philosophical arguments with these practices are compelling. The practical effects of this seem a bit less obtrusive or life changing.  

Are we any less human today then 47 years ago?

So how many are watching the Walking Dead elsewhere...

They say that the marketplace will decide.  And so it shall.  And when it comes to television viewing, or should we say media usage, what the marketplace decides will effect all of us for the next 50 years.

Some in the marketplace are deciding to dump cable and satellite.  And what was once considered a statistical glitch has become a statistic to reckon with.  Combining the second quarter of 2012 and 2013, 645,000 cable subs dropped cable, or as insiders call it, “cut the cord.” 

Now Digital Trends also reports that a significant number attached their cables.

However and overall, 2012 marked the first time when cable lost more subs than they gained.

And Magna Global predicts that nine million households will cut the cord before we elect the next president.  Some say that estimate should be more like four to five million.  And with 100 million households, shouldn’t cable be doing more of an Alfred E Neuman’s “What me worry?”

Well, did you find yourself cheering on the cord cutters?  And was my wife, your spouse and many young people also among the cheering?  Anybody who made out a cable bill this month is thinking right now, "hmmmm."  And all who already disowned cable and satellite are thinking, "Only 645,000 canned cable?  What's taking the rest of you so long?"  Has your neighbor who only pays about $30 a month to watch all the TV he wants using Hulu and Netflix made fun of you yet?

Money magazine reports that triple play prices—cable, internet and phone—have jumped 20% over the last three years.  Keep in mind that overall inflation was about 2%.  76% said that if they had to cut budgets, pay-tv would go first.  And why not, with the average triple play costing an average of $273 per month.

So are there options? A la carte cable gets brought up in barroom discussions when all interesting topics have been exhausted.  A la carte would allow consumers to pick and choose which cable nets they get in their homes.  This, in theory, would cut our costs since we would not pay for all the cable nets we never watch. 

Is cable listening?  Yes.  And giggling.  Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox, Chase Carey summed it up:  “A la carte is a fantasy.”  Carey claims that the current trend of bundling a bunch of cable networks together for our consumption is actually what the public wants. 

Speaking to 21^st Century Fox execs, boss Rupert Murdoch pushed away fears of cord cutting and dismissed any move toward a la carte saying simply, "Let me be absolutely clear: Content is still king."

But where will we get our content is the question. Netflix’ new offering “Orange is the New Black” has an estimated 3 million plus viewers early in its run.  That is only 10 percent of the 29.17 million Netflix subscribers.  Netflix has announced plans to double its original offerings.  Many of those are already choosing to watch “House of Cards.”

And last January, Hulu recently announced its own foray into original programming.

So, we can’t do a la carte when it comes to cable.  But we can do a la carte with a lot of other programming.  We can pick and choose individual programs through Netflix and Hulu.  We can choose to watch sports online.  Cable denies us a la carte programming, but our media menu is shifting more to a la carte all the time.

Without cable and satellite subs, who will be paying for the production of "Walking Dead?"  Or "Duck Dynasty?"  Can broadcast and cable continue to produce programming when there are fewer watching and if they're watching, perhaps not paying?  Broadcast and cable are ducking such questions, at least publicly.

And by the way, when will Honey Boo-Boo cameo on "Duck Dynasty?" (an unrelated rhetorical question.)

As for cord cutting, Fox COO Carey acknowledges that the newly graduated college students who never had cable before may choose to not get cable.  Ever.  But Carey believes those statistical changes will happen next decade, not in the next three years. 

The result of cord cutting may mean fewer cable networks survive, fewer new ones get a chance or it could be that cable realizes that we can live without them at its current cost.  Maybe, just maybe, the following chain of events will take place:

1.  major sports, both college and pro, will realize the fees they charge to broadcast and cable are too high and will lower their costs, given so many subscribers are threatening to leave cable and satellite so...

2.  ESPN will be able to lower its expenses so…

3.  ESPN and others will cut costs to cable and satellite companies…

4.  and  this trend will allow cable to lower its expenses and its cost per subscriber leading to...
5.  much joy and more profits for cable and satellite.

Because we know that large companies always make wise decisions based on statistical projections given current trends. 

And we also know that Republicans will seek a centrist presidential candidate to accommodate recent polling trends and  Democrats will make gutsy decisions.    

Of swastikas and public relations

        Sometimes a great public relations firm will count on the laziness of the journalist.  The hope of organizations is that the lazy editor of a newspaper will print the press release verbatim without fact checking.  The country of Thailand thanks the lazy journalists of America for letting them get away with one...or more.

So when Chulalongkorn University, a prestigious Thai university, allowed students to include Hitler among superheroes painted on a wall, many around the world responded with shock.  When the university responded with an apology explaining that the students didn't really know who Hitler was, the matter was settled.  American and international journalists ran the apology.

What journalists did not follow up on is that the issue goes back to 2011, when an article noted that the swastika had become chic attire for Thailand's young.  What journalists did not mention was a fried chicken stand in Bangkok that uses a picture of Hitler with a bow tie on its window.  What journalists missed is pieces of a story were there among the t-shirts of swastikas and fried chicken parts.

I can tell you that not one Thai student I spoke with here in Bangkok knows what the swastika means or who Hitler is.  A separate comment on the state of education may well be needed here.  And perhaps might make a good story.  What you read here is not an indictment of Thailand or the excellent people I have met here.  It's an indictment and one more bit of evidence that some of our journalists are getting lazier. And public relations firms thank them for their support.

Aaron Sorkin, source of a perfect world

        While here in Thailand I missed the season premiere of HBO's Newsroom.  I am bummed.  Like West Wing, creator Aaron Sorkin has created a perfect world where idealism mixed with professional pride and extraordinary talent accomplishes great things.  

I asked a friend with 20+ years of network news experience and 20+ Emmy awards to show for it whether Newsroom is at all realistic.  Sadly, I learned it is not.  A real newsroom lacks the time for pontification and the great speeches that Sorkin offers.  Perhaps, what Sorkin really wants to offer us is a journalistic ideal.  No, not perhaps.  That is what he is doing.  Not to mention a lot of very good looking people.  And Jeff Daniels. 

I see things close to that ideal while In Thailand.  Getting CNN International and BBC I learn about actual news.  Not the news through the eyes of politicians like CNN in America, FOX and MSNBC offer, but through the eyes of experts who actually tell me why the news is important, who is effected and what are the possibilities for actions and reactions.  Actual news.  

The world does not care about Republicans and Democrats.  They care about important things.  Not watching American cable news networks, I get to learn about important things.  The worst thing about CNN International is that they still have Piers Morgan.  Why?  Piers Morgan is to journalism what Ke$ha is to fine art.  But I digress.

Keep giving us ideals, Mr. Sorkin.  We need things to aspire to.  We need to think there is hope and a world where journalistic skill,  intellect and ethics override greed, the thirst for ratings and the belief that if you put enough attractive women on a news set, that some sort of news might be delivered. 

Ever shrinking budgets make gathering news so much harder.  Newsrooms of TV stations and now a Georgia newspaper chain have fired photographers and told the reporters they are now photographers AND videographers AND reporters AND editors AND bloggers AND tweeters..... They are called "One Man Bands."  (Pardon the sexism.  I just report this stuff, I don't give it names.)

Burnout among journalists is high, pay remains pretty low and the quality is diminishing.  Journalists are now sadly among the least trusted professions.  Perhaps because so many believe a blogger is a journalist, but that's another story.  

We need journalistic ideals.  We need Aaron Sorkin to reassure us that there are still those that want to inform us and do so without a political agenda.  I know my friend in the actual newsroom takes great pride in the content he offers and has the awards and respect to show for it.  

In America, we have CNN, Fox, MSNBC and thousands of bloggers.  What do we viewers have to show for it?

Catching Up With Change--Part 2

Part 2 of playing catch up with all going on in the media.  It's all about the media which means it's all about us.  We're the end users.  Are we getting any use?

Sometimes television does good.  It doesn't mean all will be happy.  A recent Glee episode included an extended scene dramatizing a shooter in the high school while students and faculty took responsible actions to stay safe.  It turns out in the program that there was no shooter though a gun was discharged on campus.

Those perhaps most qualified to comment on the appropriateness of the show, the people of Sandy Hook, contended that the episode was too soon after the massacre.  Others suggest that the episode keeps the issue front and center.  The show was written before Sandy Hook happened.  The terror was recreated well.  Was it too soon after the massacre or was Fox serving to dramatize the effects of such violence?  I am unqualified to have a conclusion.  Fox did include a vague warning at the beginning of the show that the episode involved school violence.  Glee dealt with a fear we all now share.  Since Columbine there have been 31+ massacres.  Was Glee too soon or too real? Or both?

The ratings for Glee jumped 20% for the episode. However, on April 18, Glee lost in the ratings to a rerun of The Big Bang Theory.  Perhaps the most shocking news is that the five combined networks (apparently there is a CW network that airs various programming) got a combined rating of 9.1.  This means that fewer than one out of ten viewers watched a broadcast network at that time.  This compares to a combined rating of 90 for three broadcast networks a few decades ago.

A recent study found that five million homes have become "zero TV homes."  These homes have no antenna, no cable, satellite or other television program provider.  That is up from two million such homes in 2007.  They watch everything they want to on their computers.  Some folks I spoke to have a large HDTV.  It is hooked up to their computers to watch whatever they want online.

Cable bills are too high.  There is so much available on the internet.  There are many reasons to go to zero-TV.  Perhaps if viewers didn't have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials per hour, they would be more patient?  Perhaps broadcasters (and cable) could air fewer commercials, charge more for each and make just as much money?  

If there were fewer commercials and shorter breaks, I would not be as prone to going to Weather Channel.  I will keep TV in my home for various reasons I have rationalized.  I love watching sports.  I love watching Walking Dead.  HBO does amazing documentaries and PBS has some great shows.  It just ain't worth $100+, as my wife reminds me once a month when the bill comes.

Broadcast TV may be just a memory anyway if Fox goes through with its threat.  And the FCC is aware of this threat and responded publicly.  More about this in part 3 of "What's Changing in the Media?"

Media Are/Is Changing--for good and bad...

It's changing.  Constantly.  Quickly.  Some change is good.  Some change is bad.  Some change is just, well….change.

Since I checked in last the media has run amok.  Joan Rivers' mouth ran amok.  AMC ratings ran amok.  The Bible ran amok.  Jon Stewart is running away.  And broadcast networks may be going away.

This may take more than one column to catch us all up.  

First let's take out the trash.  Which means a comment about Joan Rivers.  Her comments on Adele's weight may have been funny 30 years ago when Ms. Rivers was relevant.  Yes, there was a time she was relevant.  She did an excellent job subbing for Johnny Carson.  Somehow, subbing for Johnny has made her an expert on clothing and weight.  (The link here contains strong language, all directed at Joan Rivers.)

Joan is far from the only contributor to the problem of eating disorders.  Just as culpable are the stories of miraculous weight loss.  Snooki, whose sole contribution to society has yet to be determined, lost 42 pounds not too long ago. We know this because of a story about her miraculous weight loss.  

And by publicizing this story and all stories about actresses that gave birth, had a nanny raise their kid and lost a bunch of weight, the message is reinforced: Lose weight or women who had criminally negligent plastic surgery will criticize you.  Or far worse and more seriously, some women and men may see themselves as less worthy and develop an eating disorder.  

Another bad change:  Talk of the Nation (TOTN) on NPR is going away.  TOTN offered daily in depth discussions on a range of issues from the immediately relevant to the humorously trivial.  NPR is canceling the show this summer. Is canceling TOTN another episode of broadcasters giving in to our increasingly short attention span?  The network announced it was replacing the show with more magazine style news programming.  

The result of this cancellation and presumably the cancellation of Science Friday, is I will be less informed about a range of topics.  I may know about stuff, but the depth of that knowledge will be truncated.  Yes, I can research on my own.  But I loved the way NPR did the research for me and presented it fairly, professionally and with a hint of perspective.  I am sorry for our shorter attention spans.  I am sure I am guilty also.  Must we all suffer for it and have the trait reinforced by broadcasters?  

We will miss Neil Conan, host of TOTN and Ira Flatow, host of Science Friday.  I thank them for making me smarter and allowing me to enjoy the process.

So much to talk about.  A column ain't enough room.  Give me a few minutes and I will continue.  Not all the news is bad.  Just wait. Some of it is good and some of the news is truly neutral but still interesting...