Monday, January 28, 2008
Time zone tomfoolery
The time-zone lunacy of "safe harbor" has apparently slapped 52 ABC stations with the maximum $27,500 fine for indecent content. I remember watching the 2003 episode of NYPD Blue that contained a gratuitous nude scene, with the actress barely covering her naughty bits, but living in the Eastern time zone I witnessed the show at 10:03 p.m. Through no fault of their own (my opinion), the Central time zone ABC affiliates (all 52 of them) played the scene at 9:03, based on decades of precedent where primetime runs from 7-10 p.m. local time.
The lunacy stays with the policy-makers in Washington, DC who somehow believe that everyone has the same clock., that somehow a show that runs at 9 (outside the old family hour) will magically appear after 9 in the mid-section of the United States. Or that more adult content in primetime will run after 10, when virtually all affiliates in the CST are doing local news leading into their 10:30 Leno/Letterman/Nightline.
With the exception of live events, I guess the non-East Coast stations will have to be more careful about content. And the networks and Congress can go on pretending that everyone lives under the same clock.
The lunacy stays with the policy-makers in Washington, DC who somehow believe that everyone has the same clock., that somehow a show that runs at 9 (outside the old family hour) will magically appear after 9 in the mid-section of the United States. Or that more adult content in primetime will run after 10, when virtually all affiliates in the CST are doing local news leading into their 10:30 Leno/Letterman/Nightline.
With the exception of live events, I guess the non-East Coast stations will have to be more careful about content. And the networks and Congress can go on pretending that everyone lives under the same clock.
Labels: time zone ABC television FCC
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Media fairness
God bless http://www.drudgereport.com/ for opening my eyes to how mainstream media cover up or downplay stories embarrassing to politicians they support. If I had to rely just on CNN or MS-NBC, I would never know the shenanigans cut-and-pasted by Matt Drudge, often from the foreign press that has no ax to grind. My friends tend exclusively to the big three networks and usual newspaper axis (NYT, WAPO, AP) and act surprised when I reveal some scandal brewing about one of their beloved public figures. "Where did you read that?" they ask and after I mention "drudgereport," they sign, "Oh, that's not a real source!"
I beg to differ. It's true that his own unsourced stories seem suspicious, but when he posts valid items from the foreign press or non-mainstream journalist sources, it's hard to ignore. If it's true, who cares who reported it first? (Monica Lewinsky might...)
Apparently no major news organization ran Hillary's meltdown at a recent debate in its entirety. I had to watch it on youtube.com, thanks again to a tip-off from Matt Drudge. Why are top journalists protecting us from her angry performances? She has as much right to lose her cool as a man, but why do we not get to see it replayed on the networks? We certainly got to see her get emotional in a sympathetic way. But not when it makes her look unfriendly.
Addendum, two days later: On the other hand, Matt has much to learn about statistics. He reported a CNN poll on January 12th that showed a 50/48 split between Clinton and McCain and a 49/48 split between Obama and McCain, but the headline reads "either Clinton or Obama would beat any Republican" -- which is not true if you factor in the +/-3.5% margin of error. No one knows how the vote will go, or even if McCain will be nominated, but the margin of sampling error makes the poll outcome into a statistical tie!
I beg to differ. It's true that his own unsourced stories seem suspicious, but when he posts valid items from the foreign press or non-mainstream journalist sources, it's hard to ignore. If it's true, who cares who reported it first? (Monica Lewinsky might...)
Apparently no major news organization ran Hillary's meltdown at a recent debate in its entirety. I had to watch it on youtube.com, thanks again to a tip-off from Matt Drudge. Why are top journalists protecting us from her angry performances? She has as much right to lose her cool as a man, but why do we not get to see it replayed on the networks? We certainly got to see her get emotional in a sympathetic way. But not when it makes her look unfriendly.
Addendum, two days later: On the other hand, Matt has much to learn about statistics. He reported a CNN poll on January 12th that showed a 50/48 split between Clinton and McCain and a 49/48 split between Obama and McCain, but the headline reads "either Clinton or Obama would beat any Republican" -- which is not true if you factor in the +/-3.5% margin of error. No one knows how the vote will go, or even if McCain will be nominated, but the margin of sampling error makes the poll outcome into a statistical tie!
Pot calling out the kettle
If you live in a Comcast market, you have no doubt suffered through their commercials making fun of the "The Big Old Telephone Company" for its monopolistic abuses. This is the pot calling the kettle black: The big old monopolistic cable company has no business making fun of the phone company. For the most part, each is a virtual monopoly for standard service. Ignoring overbuilds, customers have a single choice for landline phones and combination cable/broadband, at least until fiber to the home is a reality.
