Thursday, June 07, 2007
Fred Thompson on YouTube
Yesterday I saw the 38-second YouTube video clip of Presidential aspirant Fred Thompson chewing up the scenery in a rebuke of Michael Moore. The descriptions reads: As Fred Thompson has criticized Michael Moore for his trip to Cuba and visit with Fidel Castro for his documentary on health care, Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate on the topic of health care. Moore also made a reference that Thompson smokes Cuban cigars and is violator of the trade embargo. Thompson responds with cigar in hand.
The politics of this is less interesting to me than the implications for TV. Who needs a news gatekeeper (let alone a network or local TV affiliate) when riveting content can be delivered like this. Even better is when the old-time media pick up on the viral video and give it a second life.
Is it wise for media outlets to hype YouTube? Is free publicity for the competition a good idea? If Fred Thompson had done the same idea on The Today Show, would Good Morning America mention it?
Sometimes I think the traditional media don't fully understand the sea change at hand.
The politics of this is less interesting to me than the implications for TV. Who needs a news gatekeeper (let alone a network or local TV affiliate) when riveting content can be delivered like this. Even better is when the old-time media pick up on the viral video and give it a second life.
Is it wise for media outlets to hype YouTube? Is free publicity for the competition a good idea? If Fred Thompson had done the same idea on The Today Show, would Good Morning America mention it?
Sometimes I think the traditional media don't fully understand the sea change at hand.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Fleeting Profanity
A federal court has ruled that "fleeting expletives" should not be judged as indecent speech. This ruling includes comments made by Bono during NBC's broadcast of the "Golden Globes" in 2003, in which he used the phrase: "fucking brilliant."
I hope this ruling loses on appeal to the Supreme Court. Not unlike the British judge the other day who said "What's a website?" -- I think these federal judges have never heard of tape-delay (actually a digital delay device) where networks can easily snip out offensive words.
Live TV is not necessarily live, and when it is, it's some fool's choice. Broadcast TV is a guest in people's living rooms. Cable has forced broadcast to be more raw, alas, but there's a reason why those remaining 4 words of the original 7 words you cannot say on television are still there: They are incredibly vulgar.
To those who would argue, "You know, you could turn it off! Your set has an off switch!" -- that's the same as poisioning your city's drinking water and then claiming, "You know, you could drink something else! There's plenty of bottled water, you cheap bastard." Regretably, that line is just fine in broadcast primetime these days.
I hope this ruling loses on appeal to the Supreme Court. Not unlike the British judge the other day who said "What's a website?" -- I think these federal judges have never heard of tape-delay (actually a digital delay device) where networks can easily snip out offensive words.
Live TV is not necessarily live, and when it is, it's some fool's choice. Broadcast TV is a guest in people's living rooms. Cable has forced broadcast to be more raw, alas, but there's a reason why those remaining 4 words of the original 7 words you cannot say on television are still there: They are incredibly vulgar.
To those who would argue, "You know, you could turn it off! Your set has an off switch!" -- that's the same as poisioning your city's drinking water and then claiming, "You know, you could drink something else! There's plenty of bottled water, you cheap bastard." Regretably, that line is just fine in broadcast primetime these days.
