(From RealClearSports)
Editor's note: In advance of President Obama's State of the Union address next week, RCP is rolling out daily "state of" reports to better frame the issues facing the nation. Today: The state of American sports.
On so many levels, most sports fans are happy to see 2011 in the rearview mirror. Both the NFL and NBA had prolonged work stoppages that threatened their seasons. Two major college programs - Ohio State and Miami - were exposed for rampant cheating involving criminal elements. And on top of all that, the alleged child rape scandal at Penn State not only obliterated its football coaching staff, but shook the entire university to its core.
So 2012 should be a stroll in the park then, with a restoration of the usual fun and games, right? While things can’t possibly be as bleak as they were last year, there are some dark clouds looming. Here’s a look ahead:
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
The NFL resolved its labor crisis with no loss of regular season games, and its perch as king of American sports was not threatened by the lockout - in fact, it might have become more entrenched. The $9 billion industry now is guaranteed labor peace for the next decade, and has further stuffed its coffers with a nine-year TV contract extension, worth $3 billion per year. Interest in the league is at an all-time high, buoyed in recent weeks by Tebow-mania, which just adds an embarrassment of riches to a league that hardly needs more publicity.
So the rest of the sports leagues will have to fight for the NFL’s leftover scraps. Major League Baseball managed to secure its own long-term labor peace without any rancor, though performance-enhancing drugs continue to cast a shadow on the sport, both in terms of Hall of Fame enshrinement of alleged PED users and the recent revelation that NL MVP Ryan Braun had failed a drug test.
The NBA had its own labor dispute, with the season saved by a last-minute deal that still came with a cost: the loss of about 20 percent of the games. But the sport with trouble ahead is the NHL, which already had one entire season wiped out in 2004-05. Donald Fehr, who spearheaded several of baseball’s labor wars, is now the head of the NHL players’ union. He had fired a shot across the owners’ bow last week by rejecting a realignment proposal, setting the stage for turbulent times ahead as the current deal is scheduled to expire in September.
COLLEGE SPORTS
NCAA President Mark Emmert might just have the most thankless task in sports. He has to navigate a billion-dollar industry masked as amateur athletics. The scandals at Ohio State and Miami (among others) demonstrated that the difficulties of maintaining a flawed system whose entire labor force is undercompensated 18-to-22-year-olds who can easily fall prey to nebulous outside influences.
A new proposal is on the table to pay compensation to college athletes in the form of a $2,000-per-month stipend. But that’s akin to patching up a gunshot wound with a Band-Aid. Emmert is considering more sweeping reforms that may more adequately address systemic issues facing the NCAA, which still operates an antiquated model that is no longer compatible - economically or otherwise - with the times.
(From RealClearSports)
College football, the real cash cow in college athletics, has specific problems to address that fall outside of the purview of the NCAA. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is universally derided, with criticism only intensifying after the most recent championship game that pitted two schools (Alabama and LSU) from the same conference. The BCS also has done its part to destroy century-long rivalries by ushering in a conference realignment frenzy. With its current TV deal scheduled to expire after the 2013 season, the BCS will be forced to contemplate a dramatic shakeup, likely as soon as this summer.
THE OLYMPICS
If it’s a leap year, it must be time for the Summer Olympics. The 2012 London Games are facing numerous challenges, not the least of which is measuring up to its predecessor. The 2008 Games were orchestrated nearly flawlessly by China’s communist government, which spared no expenses or manpower to make sure everything went smoothly in Beijing, including an event-best 51 gold medals for the Chinese.
The U.S. team finished a distant second with 36 golds, though it did garner a Games-high 110 total medals. The Americans are favored to top both standings this year in England, with high hopes for a number of athletes, particularly swimmer Michael Phelps, who is expected to add to his record 14 gold medals in his final Olympics.
SPORTS MEDIA
For the first time since 1988, the Olympics broadcast will not have Dick Ebersol at the helm, and that’s a good thing, as his insistence on tape-delaying live events had caused a steady decline of TV ratings on NBC, for both Summer and Winter Games.
NBC’s new owner Comcast will instead use the Olympics to increase viewership and visibility for its family of networks - especially the NBC Sports Network (formerly Versus) - and Web properties by making nearly every event available live, either on TV or via live-streaming.
NBC, as well as Fox and CBS, are trying to maintain their influence in a sports media landscape increasingly dominated by ESPN, which raked in $8.5 billion in revenue in 2010 for parent company Disney. ESPN has been able to dramatically increase its cash flow by extracting ever more subscriber fees from cable and satellite operators to supplement its advertising revenue.
As a result, bidding wars for sports programming have caused rights fees to skyrocket. In just the last year, NBC paid $4.3 billion to the International Olympic Committee (for four Olympics through 2020); Fox, CBS and NBC paid $28 billion to the NFL while ESPN paid $15.2 billion for its own separate “Monday Night Football” deal (through 2022); ESPN also paid $500 million to the NCAA for non-football and non-basketball championships (through 2024); and CBS and NBC paid an undisclosed amount to the PGA Tour (through 2021).
All that cost of doing business will eventually be passed on to the average sports fan, even if he or she decides to forego paying escalating ticket prices and instead watches everything from home.
But the good news is that - other than, potentially, the NHL - there will be plenty to watch in 2012. And if we’re lucky, we won’t have to deal with learning a new household name, as we did in 2011 with Jerry Sandusky.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
20 January 2012
29 September 2010
The Shocking Discovery of Media Bias
About a decade ago, while attending graduate school and serving as a teaching assistant, I was asked to deliver a lecture to about 400 students. I happily obliged until I saw the lecture notes:
"Conservative Bias in the News Media."
Huh?
No kidding. And this was at one of the nation’s most prestigious public universities. Let’s just say it’s known by its four-letter name and proximity to Hollywood.
I called an audible, opting for my own notes and delivering a polemic on media bias in the auditorium Eddie Murphy made famous in "The Nutty Professor." I omitted the truly nutty parts from the original lecture notes that blamed the "conservative media bias" on "corporations with their agendas to control the American media companies."
Yes, we all know that GE created MSNBC to perpetuate this vast right-wing conspiracy.
But that lecture (my first and last, as I wasn’t invited for an encore) was a learning experience for me too. I’ve spent over 20 years working in the news media — as an editor, reporter, columnist and now a manager — but that moment crystallized for me why there is rampant liberal bias in newsrooms all across America. It was incubated and bred in those classrooms.
America’s universities, especially elite universities, are the last bastions of progressive liberalism. Shielded by the walls of the ivory tower, professors and lecturers live in a make-belief utopia that has no basis in reality. They impart their own leftist worldview on impressionable young idealists. This is true of nearly all social sciences disciplines, and journalism is no exception.
In past generations, journalists were born and raised on the street — as copy boys, on the cops beat and on the dimly lit high school football fields — and the news business was a trade, requiring not college degrees but enterprise and know-how. Over time, though, journalism has become a domain of the liberal arts, with young aspiring journalists increasingly disengaged from the everyday lives of the common folk and spoon-fed the progressive ideology straight from the classroom to the newsroom.
This is particularly true of the national news media, where pedigree — an education from an Ivy League institution or a brand-name journalism school — trumps all when it comes to hiring practices.
Diversity policies are strictly enforced except when it comes to diversity of thought. It was revealed that the newsroom of Slate voted 55-1 for Barack Obama over John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, shocking only because it wasn’t 56-0.
This bias comes through not just in column writing. Yes, we expect the likes of Frank Rich, Eugene Robinson and Robert Scheer to be mouthpieces for progressive views, and at least they’re honest about that. What’s troubling is that the bias now is very much evident in even your mundane everyday reporting, from just about every mainstream media news organization, such as the New York Times, Washington Post and even the Associated Press. There isn’t a straight lead about anything anymore.
The mainstream media still don’t get why the average reader or viewer is tuning them out. In fact, their reaction to the declining circulation numbers and ratings reveals a contempt for those who really should be their customers.
Recently I had a conversation with someone who’s been in the news business for more than three decades. He expressed his frustration and bewilderment at the success of the Fox News Channel. First, he denigrates Fox’s "fair and balanced" mantra, then he belittles its viewership.
"But Jack (not his real name)," I protest. "There is a good reason why Fox’s ratings far outstrip its competition."
"So does Wal-Mart," he snorts. "What does that tell you?"
"What about Wal-Mart?" I shoot back. "They have lots of loyal customers, just like Fox News, so what’s wrong with that?"
"Well, that’s exactly it," comes the smirking reply. "Fox News’ viewers are mostly those people."
Those people. Can you hear the disdain?
Those who live in flyover country instead of the Hamptons. Those who went to State U. instead of Harvard and Cornell. Those who learned Spanish from their co-workers instead of their nannies and housekeepers. Those people.
The mainstream media are losing those people as their companies circle the drain. Yet they wonder why.
(Written for a Tea Party Event)
"Conservative Bias in the News Media."
Huh?
No kidding. And this was at one of the nation’s most prestigious public universities. Let’s just say it’s known by its four-letter name and proximity to Hollywood.
I called an audible, opting for my own notes and delivering a polemic on media bias in the auditorium Eddie Murphy made famous in "The Nutty Professor." I omitted the truly nutty parts from the original lecture notes that blamed the "conservative media bias" on "corporations with their agendas to control the American media companies."
Yes, we all know that GE created MSNBC to perpetuate this vast right-wing conspiracy.
But that lecture (my first and last, as I wasn’t invited for an encore) was a learning experience for me too. I’ve spent over 20 years working in the news media — as an editor, reporter, columnist and now a manager — but that moment crystallized for me why there is rampant liberal bias in newsrooms all across America. It was incubated and bred in those classrooms.
America’s universities, especially elite universities, are the last bastions of progressive liberalism. Shielded by the walls of the ivory tower, professors and lecturers live in a make-belief utopia that has no basis in reality. They impart their own leftist worldview on impressionable young idealists. This is true of nearly all social sciences disciplines, and journalism is no exception.
In past generations, journalists were born and raised on the street — as copy boys, on the cops beat and on the dimly lit high school football fields — and the news business was a trade, requiring not college degrees but enterprise and know-how. Over time, though, journalism has become a domain of the liberal arts, with young aspiring journalists increasingly disengaged from the everyday lives of the common folk and spoon-fed the progressive ideology straight from the classroom to the newsroom.
This is particularly true of the national news media, where pedigree — an education from an Ivy League institution or a brand-name journalism school — trumps all when it comes to hiring practices.
Diversity policies are strictly enforced except when it comes to diversity of thought. It was revealed that the newsroom of Slate voted 55-1 for Barack Obama over John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, shocking only because it wasn’t 56-0.
This bias comes through not just in column writing. Yes, we expect the likes of Frank Rich, Eugene Robinson and Robert Scheer to be mouthpieces for progressive views, and at least they’re honest about that. What’s troubling is that the bias now is very much evident in even your mundane everyday reporting, from just about every mainstream media news organization, such as the New York Times, Washington Post and even the Associated Press. There isn’t a straight lead about anything anymore.
The mainstream media still don’t get why the average reader or viewer is tuning them out. In fact, their reaction to the declining circulation numbers and ratings reveals a contempt for those who really should be their customers.
Recently I had a conversation with someone who’s been in the news business for more than three decades. He expressed his frustration and bewilderment at the success of the Fox News Channel. First, he denigrates Fox’s "fair and balanced" mantra, then he belittles its viewership.
"But Jack (not his real name)," I protest. "There is a good reason why Fox’s ratings far outstrip its competition."
"So does Wal-Mart," he snorts. "What does that tell you?"
"What about Wal-Mart?" I shoot back. "They have lots of loyal customers, just like Fox News, so what’s wrong with that?"
"Well, that’s exactly it," comes the smirking reply. "Fox News’ viewers are mostly those people."
Those people. Can you hear the disdain?
Those who live in flyover country instead of the Hamptons. Those who went to State U. instead of Harvard and Cornell. Those who learned Spanish from their co-workers instead of their nannies and housekeepers. Those people.
The mainstream media are losing those people as their companies circle the drain. Yet they wonder why.
(Written for a Tea Party Event)
25 February 2009
Erecting the Great (Pay) Wall for Newspapers
(From RealClearPolitics - Media Watch)
Let's face it, pay-per-view will be returning to newspaper web sites with a vengeance in the near future. If not by the second half of this year, definitely 2010. Ad revenue is way down - for both print and online - and the recession isn't going anywhere soon.
By now, everyone's shared their own ideas about how to rescue the business. But lately, it's become apparent that we've run out of new thoughts. Most everyone has returned to some variation of a pay scheme.
No one except the Christian Science Monitor dares to do the obvious, which is to shut down the print edition altogether. Newspapers are still too afraid to embrace the new world by leaving the "paper" part of their legacy behind. Since that's the case, a paywall seems to be the only thing that might keep more newspapers from going out of business, for now.
But if we must erect a paywall, let's not make it just any wall. Let's build a Great (pay) Wall that's strong enough to keep the barbarians at bay.
Let's start by creating a cooperative, managed by the NAA (Newspaper Association of America). Every paper that's part of the NAA may participate in this cooperative, which will serve as the clearinghouse for the new great paywall.
Then, with ample warning to the readers, put up the wall on September 1. Why September 1? Because the summer is over, kids are back in school and adults are back at their computer terminals. But more important, it's the dawn of the football season, when web traffic typically spikes for news sites.
Once the wall is up, every newspaper web site is accessible only to paid subscribers. Each paper may decide to allow some free content daily, but it must be extremely limited. The index page for every paper's site should be so full of teasers on the good stuff that a reader just can't help himself but to pay to see what he's missing.
So how do you subscribe? There would be two kinds of subscribers. Anyone who subscribes to the print edition of any paper would be granted a complimentary online subscription. If you don't want to subscribe to your local paper - or any paper, for that matter - you may become an online-only subscriber, at say, $50 a year for the privilege.
Your unique username and password would allow you access to every newspaper site that's part of this cooperative. But here's one catch - you could only access it from one computer at a time (like how an AOL account works) so you won't be so inclined to share your account with dozens of your buddies. Educational institutions and large companies may purchase corporate accounts so that individuals using school or company terminals will be able to bypass the wall.
So how would the money be distributed? Papers get to keep all of the print subscriber money, so it makes sense for individual papers to work to drive up circulation. As for the online-only subscribers, half of the money would be equally divided among all members (socialism), the other half would be distributed according to web site traffic (capitalism), so papers would have an incentive to drive in more traffic to their own sites.
Let's do a little, and very crude, math. According to the NAA, its 2,000 member sites average about 75 million unique visitors. About 25 million already subscribe to a paper, so leave them out. If we may extract 50 bucks out of the rest of the 50 million heretofore freeloaders, that's $2.5 billion. Counting conservatively, at $1 billion, that means under the 50-50 scheme, the smallest of the papers would make about $250,000 annually. The New York Times, on the other hand, would make about $90 million, Wall Street Journal $33.5 million, San Francisco Chronicle, $38 million.
This model may tide the papers over the tough times until they figure out just what needs to be done for long-term survival. And there are challenges to implement this scheme: The Justice Department may have to sign off on the cooperative. There may be fierce pushback initially by the consumers. An independent auditor would be required to referee disputes.
And finally, the newspaper business has to be ready for the potential that this concept may be more like the Berlin Wall than the Great Wall of China - merely a flawed stop-gap rather than something that brings about stability and longevity. At some point in the future, the papers must accept the new reality and act accordingly.
That starts with stopping the presses.
Let's face it, pay-per-view will be returning to newspaper web sites with a vengeance in the near future. If not by the second half of this year, definitely 2010. Ad revenue is way down - for both print and online - and the recession isn't going anywhere soon.
By now, everyone's shared their own ideas about how to rescue the business. But lately, it's become apparent that we've run out of new thoughts. Most everyone has returned to some variation of a pay scheme.
No one except the Christian Science Monitor dares to do the obvious, which is to shut down the print edition altogether. Newspapers are still too afraid to embrace the new world by leaving the "paper" part of their legacy behind. Since that's the case, a paywall seems to be the only thing that might keep more newspapers from going out of business, for now.
But if we must erect a paywall, let's not make it just any wall. Let's build a Great (pay) Wall that's strong enough to keep the barbarians at bay.
Let's start by creating a cooperative, managed by the NAA (Newspaper Association of America). Every paper that's part of the NAA may participate in this cooperative, which will serve as the clearinghouse for the new great paywall.
Then, with ample warning to the readers, put up the wall on September 1. Why September 1? Because the summer is over, kids are back in school and adults are back at their computer terminals. But more important, it's the dawn of the football season, when web traffic typically spikes for news sites.
Once the wall is up, every newspaper web site is accessible only to paid subscribers. Each paper may decide to allow some free content daily, but it must be extremely limited. The index page for every paper's site should be so full of teasers on the good stuff that a reader just can't help himself but to pay to see what he's missing.
So how do you subscribe? There would be two kinds of subscribers. Anyone who subscribes to the print edition of any paper would be granted a complimentary online subscription. If you don't want to subscribe to your local paper - or any paper, for that matter - you may become an online-only subscriber, at say, $50 a year for the privilege.
Your unique username and password would allow you access to every newspaper site that's part of this cooperative. But here's one catch - you could only access it from one computer at a time (like how an AOL account works) so you won't be so inclined to share your account with dozens of your buddies. Educational institutions and large companies may purchase corporate accounts so that individuals using school or company terminals will be able to bypass the wall.
So how would the money be distributed? Papers get to keep all of the print subscriber money, so it makes sense for individual papers to work to drive up circulation. As for the online-only subscribers, half of the money would be equally divided among all members (socialism), the other half would be distributed according to web site traffic (capitalism), so papers would have an incentive to drive in more traffic to their own sites.
Let's do a little, and very crude, math. According to the NAA, its 2,000 member sites average about 75 million unique visitors. About 25 million already subscribe to a paper, so leave them out. If we may extract 50 bucks out of the rest of the 50 million heretofore freeloaders, that's $2.5 billion. Counting conservatively, at $1 billion, that means under the 50-50 scheme, the smallest of the papers would make about $250,000 annually. The New York Times, on the other hand, would make about $90 million, Wall Street Journal $33.5 million, San Francisco Chronicle, $38 million.
This model may tide the papers over the tough times until they figure out just what needs to be done for long-term survival. And there are challenges to implement this scheme: The Justice Department may have to sign off on the cooperative. There may be fierce pushback initially by the consumers. An independent auditor would be required to referee disputes.
And finally, the newspaper business has to be ready for the potential that this concept may be more like the Berlin Wall than the Great Wall of China - merely a flawed stop-gap rather than something that brings about stability and longevity. At some point in the future, the papers must accept the new reality and act accordingly.
That starts with stopping the presses.
24 February 2009
Top 10 Newspapers in Trouble
(From RealClearPolitics - Media Watch)
The Atlantic stirred the pot two months ago with a sensational "End Times" piece that questioned the continued existence of the New York Times. While the Grey Lady has stayed in the news with all her financial woes, other papers are suffering silently, with certain death just around the corner for some.
The Christian Science Monitor announced that it was abandoning its print edition back in October last year, and then the avalanche came. The Tribune Co. was the first to file for bankruptcy protection, and then the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Journal Register and Philadelphia Newspapers followed suit. In the meantime, Gannett and Media News announced unpaid furlough programs, and the Los Angeles Times was but one of many to announce yet another round of massive newsroom cuts.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Rocky Mountain News and Tucson Citizen all might not see April Fools Day. Then yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle hinted that it could be going away soon as well. Even the Washington Post, one of the most stable papers, reported a 77% drop in earnings in the fourth quarter of 2008. In todays gloomy newspaper landscape, no one is safe.
With that in mind, we present you with the top 10 major metro newspapers in trouble.
No. 10 New York Daily News
The Atlantic stirred the pot two months ago with a sensational "End Times" piece that questioned the continued existence of the New York Times. While the Grey Lady has stayed in the news with all her financial woes, other papers are suffering silently, with certain death just around the corner for some.
The Christian Science Monitor announced that it was abandoning its print edition back in October last year, and then the avalanche came. The Tribune Co. was the first to file for bankruptcy protection, and then the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Journal Register and Philadelphia Newspapers followed suit. In the meantime, Gannett and Media News announced unpaid furlough programs, and the Los Angeles Times was but one of many to announce yet another round of massive newsroom cuts.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Rocky Mountain News and Tucson Citizen all might not see April Fools Day. Then yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle hinted that it could be going away soon as well. Even the Washington Post, one of the most stable papers, reported a 77% drop in earnings in the fourth quarter of 2008. In todays gloomy newspaper landscape, no one is safe.
With that in mind, we present you with the top 10 major metro newspapers in trouble.
No. 10 New York Daily News
22 December 2008
New Attraction: Media Watch
Dear Readers:
Well, I just can't help myself. I have started "Media Watch" - a new blog for RealClearPolitics.
This won't come as much of a surprise. I'm still very engaged in and passionate about the media business, particularly the fate of the newspapers. This new blog will be refreshed daily with the latest news and opinions about the world of media.
I won't be mirroring every post here at the Zoo, so please be sure to check the blog at RealClearPolitics. But here's the first post:
=====
Well, I just can't help myself. I have started "Media Watch" - a new blog for RealClearPolitics.
This won't come as much of a surprise. I'm still very engaged in and passionate about the media business, particularly the fate of the newspapers. This new blog will be refreshed daily with the latest news and opinions about the world of media.
I won't be mirroring every post here at the Zoo, so please be sure to check the blog at RealClearPolitics. But here's the first post:
=====
The newspaper business is in its death throes, apparently. But that hardly means journalism is dead.
The media industry is evolving at a breakneck pace in the opening stanza of the 21st century - and instead of just reporting the news, the media frequently find themselves in the news. Since we here at Real Clear Politics follow the news, it's become imperative for us to also keep up with the people who bring us the news.
A veteran newspaperman-cum-digital media maven, I relished this challenge. I got my first job as a paperboy at the age of 15 and worked up the newspaper food chain from there. In my 20 years as a journalist, I put in time both as an editor and a writer, covering diverse events ranging from the Super Bowl to Hong Kong's change of ownership.
Viewing the newspaper business as a sinking ship, I jumped into the high seas and surfed for the web. Three years ago I began a new life as the BCS Guru and six months ago I found my kindred spirits at Real Clear Politics and helped start our new international politics and news site Real Clear World.
Everyday, you'll find a little bit of something here covering the media - from the journalism realm to the business end. Your interest is most welcome, as are comments and tips. You may contact me at sam@realclearworld.com.
- Samuel Chi, December 2008
19 December 2008
Now It's Just the 'News' Business
(From RealClearPolitics)
At least somebody in Detroit is thinking outside of the box.
An industry seemingly headed for inevitable collapse at last thought of something innovative that just might bring about survival, and maybe even future prosperity.
We're talking about the newspaper business, of course.
While the Big Three kept their palms up in Washington, waiting for a handout, Detroit's two newspapers, the Free Press and News, announced on Tuesday a dramatic change to the way they operate. By next spring, the Detroit newspapers will become a mostly online entity.
In short, they're taking the paper out of newspaper.
And why not?
Newspapers across America are on their deathbeds. Readership is sagging. Newsrooms are shrinking. Layoffs are a quarterly occurrence. The Star-Ledger barely averted going out of business altogether. The Tribune Company, owner of both the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, just filed for bankruptcy. Even the venerable Grey Lady put her building on the block to raise funds.
And there are no bailouts coming.
Against this backdrop, the Detroit papers thought of trying something else. Instead of slash and burn and send their talented journalists home to collect unemployment, they decided to get out of the trucking business.
The newspaper business, first and foremost, should be about news gathering and disseminating information. But over time, it has been held hostage by things and people that have nothing to do with its primary functions. And it's the cost of funding for the paper, newsprint, trucks, truck drivers, circulation managers and the buildings that house them that has newspapers over a barrel. Not the cost of paying for the journalists and gathering news.
Full disclosure, I'm a newspaper guy but I also have been around newspapers in many different capacities. My first job was as a paperboy for the Ann Arbor News. My second as a tier for the L.A. Times, one of the teenagers who bundle together the humongous Sunday papers for delivery. I also drove a truck and worked as a telemarketer for the Times.
All that was before I got into the newsroom and became one of the people who actually put out the paper.
Six months after I began working for the San Francisco Examiner as an editor, the two San Francisco papers went on strike. It wasn't because we were unhappy with our contract, I'd understand if you didn't shed a tear for our packages that included five weeks of vacation, fabulous medical coverage, annual non-merit based raises and 37 ½-hour work weeks (it's like working in France without the baguettes!).
We were out on the street because the truck drivers and their union Teamsters - wanted to be paid near six-figure salaries. And our guild had to aid and abet the extortion, to our own detriment.
That was 1994.
In my nearly two decades inside the newsroom it had become obvious that the tail was wagging the dog violently but the dog kept barking for the wrong reasons. Instead of dumping all the peripheral stuff that was sinking a dysfunctional business model, the knee-jerk reaction had always been to get rid of the people that gave newspapers their stature, their voice, their raison d etre.
Until Tuesday.
The Detroit papers won't be the first one to go mostly paperless, the Christian Science Monitor did so less than two months ago - but they're the first major U.S. metro dailies to do so. By reducing daily printings of the papers and cutting deliveries to three days a week, the papers hope to avert a massive newsroom bloodletting.
"We don't think it's sustainable anymore to put two newspapers out," said Dave Hunke, CEO of the Detroit Media Partnership, "drive in excess of 300,000 miles a night delivering newspapers every day of the week and keep our pricing where it is. ... If we did that, we would be slashing content and never take a step forward toward advancing our digital initiatives."
A friend who attended that Tuesday meeting in the Free Press newsroom said the reaction from the announcement was mostly positive. Sure, it meant everybody in the room kept their jobs for the time being. But generally, they applauded management for actually drawing up a reasonable plan.
"It might be risky," he said, while requesting anonymity. "But at least they're looking to the future instead of just doing what everyone else is doing, which is cutting staff. Maybe this will work, maybe not. If it does it may be a breakthrough for the newspaper business."
Or, from now on, just the "news" business.
At least somebody in Detroit is thinking outside of the box.
An industry seemingly headed for inevitable collapse at last thought of something innovative that just might bring about survival, and maybe even future prosperity.
We're talking about the newspaper business, of course.
While the Big Three kept their palms up in Washington, waiting for a handout, Detroit's two newspapers, the Free Press and News, announced on Tuesday a dramatic change to the way they operate. By next spring, the Detroit newspapers will become a mostly online entity.
In short, they're taking the paper out of newspaper.
And why not?
Newspapers across America are on their deathbeds. Readership is sagging. Newsrooms are shrinking. Layoffs are a quarterly occurrence. The Star-Ledger barely averted going out of business altogether. The Tribune Company, owner of both the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, just filed for bankruptcy. Even the venerable Grey Lady put her building on the block to raise funds.
And there are no bailouts coming.
Against this backdrop, the Detroit papers thought of trying something else. Instead of slash and burn and send their talented journalists home to collect unemployment, they decided to get out of the trucking business.
The newspaper business, first and foremost, should be about news gathering and disseminating information. But over time, it has been held hostage by things and people that have nothing to do with its primary functions. And it's the cost of funding for the paper, newsprint, trucks, truck drivers, circulation managers and the buildings that house them that has newspapers over a barrel. Not the cost of paying for the journalists and gathering news.
Full disclosure, I'm a newspaper guy but I also have been around newspapers in many different capacities. My first job was as a paperboy for the Ann Arbor News. My second as a tier for the L.A. Times, one of the teenagers who bundle together the humongous Sunday papers for delivery. I also drove a truck and worked as a telemarketer for the Times.
All that was before I got into the newsroom and became one of the people who actually put out the paper.
Six months after I began working for the San Francisco Examiner as an editor, the two San Francisco papers went on strike. It wasn't because we were unhappy with our contract, I'd understand if you didn't shed a tear for our packages that included five weeks of vacation, fabulous medical coverage, annual non-merit based raises and 37 ½-hour work weeks (it's like working in France without the baguettes!).
We were out on the street because the truck drivers and their union Teamsters - wanted to be paid near six-figure salaries. And our guild had to aid and abet the extortion, to our own detriment.
That was 1994.
In my nearly two decades inside the newsroom it had become obvious that the tail was wagging the dog violently but the dog kept barking for the wrong reasons. Instead of dumping all the peripheral stuff that was sinking a dysfunctional business model, the knee-jerk reaction had always been to get rid of the people that gave newspapers their stature, their voice, their raison d etre.
Until Tuesday.
The Detroit papers won't be the first one to go mostly paperless, the Christian Science Monitor did so less than two months ago - but they're the first major U.S. metro dailies to do so. By reducing daily printings of the papers and cutting deliveries to three days a week, the papers hope to avert a massive newsroom bloodletting.
"We don't think it's sustainable anymore to put two newspapers out," said Dave Hunke, CEO of the Detroit Media Partnership, "drive in excess of 300,000 miles a night delivering newspapers every day of the week and keep our pricing where it is. ... If we did that, we would be slashing content and never take a step forward toward advancing our digital initiatives."
A friend who attended that Tuesday meeting in the Free Press newsroom said the reaction from the announcement was mostly positive. Sure, it meant everybody in the room kept their jobs for the time being. But generally, they applauded management for actually drawing up a reasonable plan.
"It might be risky," he said, while requesting anonymity. "But at least they're looking to the future instead of just doing what everyone else is doing, which is cutting staff. Maybe this will work, maybe not. If it does it may be a breakthrough for the newspaper business."
Or, from now on, just the "news" business.
08 August 2008
Land of the Delay, Home of the Tape
(From RealClearSports)
It's a staggering fact that of the nearly 200 nations participating in the Beijing Olympics, the United States might be the only one where live coverage of the Opening Ceremony is unavailable.
Why? Thanks to NBC, which continues its criminal practice of "saving" the best of the Games for prime time -- a tactic that began in 1992 when the network first secured Olympics TV rights and continued to near-perfection to this day.
Basically, Dick Ebersol and his minions don't want you to think of the Olympics as a sporting event. They want you to view it as though it's theater. We all know what happens at the end of Hamlet but we'd still see it, right?
The problem is, sporting events can't be scripted (with apologies to the NBA). Neither can news events. And the Olympics are both.
Let's say a bomb goes off in the middle of the Opening Ceremonies. It would instantly reverberate around the globe. Footage of the carnage will be immediately beamed all over the world -- except in the United States.
Because NBC holds the exclusive U.S. broadcast rights, nothing from the Games' venues may be viewed anywhere in America except for on its broadcast partners and its own web site. So while you might get a peek of a still photo here and a news story there, you'd have to tune in, 12 hours later, to see what actually had taken place.
"A Bomb Blows Up the Entire Stage in Beijing's Olympic Stadium! Watch it on NBC Tonight at 8!"
The tape-delay practice, done away with from mainstream American sports in the early 1980s, came back with a vengeance during the 1996 Games in Atlanta, where Ebersol foisted the absurd "Plausibly Live" concept upon the unsuspecting public. Main events were shown on a delayed basis but masqueraded as live.
They became blatantly taped in the subsequent five Olympics, four staged away from U.S. soil. But with the advent of internet age, when free flow of information became readily available, NBC's ratings took a nosedive as potential viewers shunned television coverage when they already knew the results.
Even Ebersol acknowledged this fact and pledged to show more events live from Beijing this year. One way to accomplish that is to strong-arm the IOC to allow certain marquee events to be staged at 8 in the morning in China (prime time in America). Always aiming to please, of course the IOC obliged.
Michael Phelps, perhaps the headline athlete of these Games with his quest for an unprecedented eight gold medals, will have all of his finals broadcast live. NBC made sure of that.
Here's hoping Michael likes the morning swim.
28 February 2008
The Passing of a Father
I don't remember how I got hooked on National Review. I know it happened while I was a freshman in college. Little did I know that it would become perhaps the most influential literature in shaping my worldview.
National Review, of course, was Bill Buckley's baby. He was the man who masterminded the conservative revolution out of the ashes of Goldwater's defeat in 1964. Without him, there would've been no Reagan, no Republican takeover of Congress, no reclamation of the Supreme Court. Mr. Buckley began a movement that left its stamp on every branch of our government, as well as society.
His passing will be mourned. By me, and thousands like me, for our political and philosophical education didn't come from school, but from the pages of National Review.
I never had the privilege or pleasure of meeting Mr. Buckley. But as a loyal subscriber of NR, I felt there was this kinship -- he was like a philosophical father to me. His words, and the words in the magazine, were readily and eagerly digested by a young soul hungry for intellectual nourishment. It was truly a moveable feast.
In many ways, I am fortunate that my introduction to the conservative movement was through the erudite prose of NR, not the angry words from the world of talk radio or Ann Coulter's books. I learned the art of making an argument without resorting to putdowns and ad hominen. It was an education just about unavailable now in the halls of any American university.
It prepared me for life.
Bismarck once remarked that "if you're not a socialist at 19, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at 30, you have no brain." Well, call me tin man, but I'll settle for not being an idiot. What I learned from the pages of NR was a sense of individual responsibility and that government is not the elixir to what ails us. I grew up never viewing myself as a victim and it has served me well.
Demographically, I'm far from a typical NR reader. I am an immigrant; came to the U.S. at the age of 15. My family members are staunch Democrats. My friends, most of whom I met in college and from the world of journalism, are your standard issue left-liberal progressives.
In other words, I just rent space in a village of "There is nothing to fear but America itself;" "Ask not what your country can do for you, but demand it;" "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and pay for every grievance, real or imagined." I respectfully dissent. What gets me going is an absolute belief in myself and that I live in a land of opportunity. I'll get what I deserve.
Over time, my core values clashed with that of many of my colleagues, even bosses. But I thrived because I didn't shout people down when we had a disagreement -- I reasoned with people, with good cheer and good humor, straight out of Mr. Buckley's study halls. With it, I sometimes got my adversaries to least consider the merits of my views.
Sometimes I end up getting them a gift subscription to NR. And sometimes the mere presence of NR cost me money!
Every so often, I get a letter from NR asking for contribution. In its over half century of existence, NR never made money. In fact, Mr. Buckley himself said the magazine lost about $25 million over its life span. It's not easy being the scourge of the liberal elite.
National Review will live on. It will carry on because of its importance and its intellectual heft, honesty and old-fashioned civility. But the absence of its father will be palpable. Bill Buckley didn't just write a few passages in the penultimate pages of the magazine. He was the co-author of a great morality play that gave us the end of the Cold War and, for millions, their freedom.
Mr. Buckley. R.I.P.
National Review, of course, was Bill Buckley's baby. He was the man who masterminded the conservative revolution out of the ashes of Goldwater's defeat in 1964. Without him, there would've been no Reagan, no Republican takeover of Congress, no reclamation of the Supreme Court. Mr. Buckley began a movement that left its stamp on every branch of our government, as well as society.
His passing will be mourned. By me, and thousands like me, for our political and philosophical education didn't come from school, but from the pages of National Review.
I never had the privilege or pleasure of meeting Mr. Buckley. But as a loyal subscriber of NR, I felt there was this kinship -- he was like a philosophical father to me. His words, and the words in the magazine, were readily and eagerly digested by a young soul hungry for intellectual nourishment. It was truly a moveable feast.
In many ways, I am fortunate that my introduction to the conservative movement was through the erudite prose of NR, not the angry words from the world of talk radio or Ann Coulter's books. I learned the art of making an argument without resorting to putdowns and ad hominen. It was an education just about unavailable now in the halls of any American university.
It prepared me for life.
Bismarck once remarked that "if you're not a socialist at 19, you have no heart; if you're still a socialist at 30, you have no brain." Well, call me tin man, but I'll settle for not being an idiot. What I learned from the pages of NR was a sense of individual responsibility and that government is not the elixir to what ails us. I grew up never viewing myself as a victim and it has served me well.
Demographically, I'm far from a typical NR reader. I am an immigrant; came to the U.S. at the age of 15. My family members are staunch Democrats. My friends, most of whom I met in college and from the world of journalism, are your standard issue left-liberal progressives.
In other words, I just rent space in a village of "There is nothing to fear but America itself;" "Ask not what your country can do for you, but demand it;" "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and pay for every grievance, real or imagined." I respectfully dissent. What gets me going is an absolute belief in myself and that I live in a land of opportunity. I'll get what I deserve.
Over time, my core values clashed with that of many of my colleagues, even bosses. But I thrived because I didn't shout people down when we had a disagreement -- I reasoned with people, with good cheer and good humor, straight out of Mr. Buckley's study halls. With it, I sometimes got my adversaries to least consider the merits of my views.
Sometimes I end up getting them a gift subscription to NR. And sometimes the mere presence of NR cost me money!
Every so often, I get a letter from NR asking for contribution. In its over half century of existence, NR never made money. In fact, Mr. Buckley himself said the magazine lost about $25 million over its life span. It's not easy being the scourge of the liberal elite.
National Review will live on. It will carry on because of its importance and its intellectual heft, honesty and old-fashioned civility. But the absence of its father will be palpable. Bill Buckley didn't just write a few passages in the penultimate pages of the magazine. He was the co-author of a great morality play that gave us the end of the Cold War and, for millions, their freedom.
Mr. Buckley. R.I.P.
11 January 2008
Kelly Girl in a Back Alley
Is being stupid a firable offense?
If so, then Kelly Tilghman most definitely should lose her job as the lead anchor on the Golf Channel telecasts.
Let's be honest, even before she uttered those six infamous words about Tiger Woods: "Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman had dubious credentials to get the gig after the PGA Tour inexplicably signed a 15-year deal with the Golf Channel.
Ironically, the first and foremost reason for Tilghman to be chosen was her too-chummy and cozy relationship with Woods. She forged a friendship with Tiger after having many opportunities to interview him during tournaments when she served as a reporter for the Golf Channel.
Tilghman is always deferential toward Tiger on the air, nary a negative word or inference. She would frequently substitute "The World No. 1," or "the best golfer in the world," for Woods' name. While technically not wrong, her actions betrayed an unprofessional amount of worshipping. And it is perhaps fitting that she spewed out her ill-advised attempt at humor during yet another moment of Tiger Kiss-Ass.
Secondly, she got the job because she's a woman, and a pretty one at that. Anyone who disputes this is just being dishonest or naive. There was a virtual silence from the predominantly male golf media members immediately after the incident. It was no coincidence, to a man, they were all wishing this would've gone on unnoticed.
I say "to a man" because besides the esteemed Ann Miller (Honolulu Advertiser) and Melanie Houser (PGATour.com), the golf media is one big fraternity. And the guys generally like Kelly because she's a good-looking woman who's also a nice person. The boys wanted to be chivalrous and cut her some slack by maintaining silence.
And what of the Tour? As the entity that signed on with this outfit for 15 years, don't you think Tim Finchem and Co. at least express their displeasure? Not a word.
The fact that this entire episode almost went on unnoticed reflected the abysmal ratings PGA Tour events have recorded ever since the Tour ditched ESPN in favor of the Golf Channel. Almost nobody watches it.
Unfortunately when the good Rev. Al Sharpton got the wind of this, it wasn't gonna get swept under a rug. The Golf Channel at first was only going to issue a reprimand -- and three days after it happened. After ESPN, no doubt indulging in a bit of Schadenfreude, made this a national story, TGC had no choice but to hand down a more severe punishment: Two weeks suspension.
It's not enough. Not nearly enough.
You think if Roger Maltbie or Mark Rolfing said this, they'd skate with a two-week suspension?
Never mind that Tilghman is not a racist and probably felt horrible about making such an idiotic comment. The point is: She's in way over her head at a job she should never have gotten in the first place. Frankly, she's quite incompetent. And making such an absurdly offensive comment only illuminated how ill-suited she is for the job.
And it doesn't matter that Tiger "forgave" her quickly, as opposed to in 1997, when he famously let Fuzzy Zoeller twist in the wind for several weeks after Fuzzy's "friend chicken and collared greens" wise crack. This is now bigger than Tiger. Tilghman's remark may not seem much to Tiger, it is deeply hurtful and offensive to a lot of folks, particularly African-Americans.
She should be kicked out of the broadcast booth and be returned to Orlando for "Golf Central" telecasts. People have been fired for less so she should consider herself lucky that she still has a job.
But TGC is banking on the two-week suspension to take the edge off the story. And when she returns to the booth at Torey Pines, Tiger will be making his first appearance of the year. He'll put his arm around Kelly and tell her that everything's fine and that he doesn't understand what the big fuss was. Tilghman will be giddy as a schoolgirl, smiling and giggling as the pathetic sideshow unfolds.
That's why nobody watches the Golf Channel.
If so, then Kelly Tilghman most definitely should lose her job as the lead anchor on the Golf Channel telecasts.
Let's be honest, even before she uttered those six infamous words about Tiger Woods: "Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman had dubious credentials to get the gig after the PGA Tour inexplicably signed a 15-year deal with the Golf Channel.
Ironically, the first and foremost reason for Tilghman to be chosen was her too-chummy and cozy relationship with Woods. She forged a friendship with Tiger after having many opportunities to interview him during tournaments when she served as a reporter for the Golf Channel.
Tilghman is always deferential toward Tiger on the air, nary a negative word or inference. She would frequently substitute "The World No. 1," or "the best golfer in the world," for Woods' name. While technically not wrong, her actions betrayed an unprofessional amount of worshipping. And it is perhaps fitting that she spewed out her ill-advised attempt at humor during yet another moment of Tiger Kiss-Ass.
Secondly, she got the job because she's a woman, and a pretty one at that. Anyone who disputes this is just being dishonest or naive. There was a virtual silence from the predominantly male golf media members immediately after the incident. It was no coincidence, to a man, they were all wishing this would've gone on unnoticed.
I say "to a man" because besides the esteemed Ann Miller (Honolulu Advertiser) and Melanie Houser (PGATour.com), the golf media is one big fraternity. And the guys generally like Kelly because she's a good-looking woman who's also a nice person. The boys wanted to be chivalrous and cut her some slack by maintaining silence.
And what of the Tour? As the entity that signed on with this outfit for 15 years, don't you think Tim Finchem and Co. at least express their displeasure? Not a word.
The fact that this entire episode almost went on unnoticed reflected the abysmal ratings PGA Tour events have recorded ever since the Tour ditched ESPN in favor of the Golf Channel. Almost nobody watches it.
Unfortunately when the good Rev. Al Sharpton got the wind of this, it wasn't gonna get swept under a rug. The Golf Channel at first was only going to issue a reprimand -- and three days after it happened. After ESPN, no doubt indulging in a bit of Schadenfreude, made this a national story, TGC had no choice but to hand down a more severe punishment: Two weeks suspension.
It's not enough. Not nearly enough.
You think if Roger Maltbie or Mark Rolfing said this, they'd skate with a two-week suspension?
Never mind that Tilghman is not a racist and probably felt horrible about making such an idiotic comment. The point is: She's in way over her head at a job she should never have gotten in the first place. Frankly, she's quite incompetent. And making such an absurdly offensive comment only illuminated how ill-suited she is for the job.
And it doesn't matter that Tiger "forgave" her quickly, as opposed to in 1997, when he famously let Fuzzy Zoeller twist in the wind for several weeks after Fuzzy's "friend chicken and collared greens" wise crack. This is now bigger than Tiger. Tilghman's remark may not seem much to Tiger, it is deeply hurtful and offensive to a lot of folks, particularly African-Americans.
She should be kicked out of the broadcast booth and be returned to Orlando for "Golf Central" telecasts. People have been fired for less so she should consider herself lucky that she still has a job.
But TGC is banking on the two-week suspension to take the edge off the story. And when she returns to the booth at Torey Pines, Tiger will be making his first appearance of the year. He'll put his arm around Kelly and tell her that everything's fine and that he doesn't understand what the big fuss was. Tilghman will be giddy as a schoolgirl, smiling and giggling as the pathetic sideshow unfolds.
That's why nobody watches the Golf Channel.
25 August 2007
Allah's Warriors
Even before viewing CNN's "God's Warriors" six-hour series by Christiane Amanpour, I was extremely skeptical. Just the attempt to lump the extremists within three of the world's dominant religions as apparent equals smacks of moral equivalence of the worst kind.
And Amanpour did not disappoint.
Doing her anti-West, anti-Christian and borderline anti-Semitic best, Amanpour vainly tried to convince viewers that conservative Christians who issue guidelines for the length of girls' skirts on their campuses are the same beasts as the Muslims who blow up trains, cars, markets and skyscrapers. And since one Muslim girl in New York claims that "jihad" really doesn't translate to holy war, then Islam must be the Religion of Peace.
Yep, every time I read about a terrorist who blew himself up, the first thing I wonder about is whether he was a Jew or a Christian. Because peaceful Muslims just don't do such things!
But even forgetting Amanpour's blatant biases for a moment, the series should be noted for its utter lack of depth. Except for a segment that profiles one of the "founding fathers" of modern Islamic radicalism, Sayyid Qutb, there is very little new information on the subjects that the series attempts to cover. The choice of "experts" is particularly subpar, which includes two of CNN's own in-house commentators and Karen Armstrong, an "historian" of dubious credentials.
And of course, when in doubt, go ask Jimmy Carter, who never lets up with his own venom and vitriol toward fundamental Christians and the state of Israel alike. The man also has never stopped hating the country that fired him as president in 1980.
And Amanpour did not disappoint.
Doing her anti-West, anti-Christian and borderline anti-Semitic best, Amanpour vainly tried to convince viewers that conservative Christians who issue guidelines for the length of girls' skirts on their campuses are the same beasts as the Muslims who blow up trains, cars, markets and skyscrapers. And since one Muslim girl in New York claims that "jihad" really doesn't translate to holy war, then Islam must be the Religion of Peace.
Yep, every time I read about a terrorist who blew himself up, the first thing I wonder about is whether he was a Jew or a Christian. Because peaceful Muslims just don't do such things!
But even forgetting Amanpour's blatant biases for a moment, the series should be noted for its utter lack of depth. Except for a segment that profiles one of the "founding fathers" of modern Islamic radicalism, Sayyid Qutb, there is very little new information on the subjects that the series attempts to cover. The choice of "experts" is particularly subpar, which includes two of CNN's own in-house commentators and Karen Armstrong, an "historian" of dubious credentials.
And of course, when in doubt, go ask Jimmy Carter, who never lets up with his own venom and vitriol toward fundamental Christians and the state of Israel alike. The man also has never stopped hating the country that fired him as president in 1980.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)