Category Archives: Television

Madness has taken hold of Netflix

Did you get an email this morning from Reed Hastings, head honcho at Netflix? I did. Here’s an extended version of it on a Netflix blog. I am spared the trouble of writing a full response, because an NPR blog has spoken for me:

Netflix has figured out that people are very upset about its decision to split streaming video and DVD delivery — a decision that got it in huge hot water earlier this year. Customers who had previously gotten both streaming and DVDs for a single price would now have to pay separately. If you only use one or the other, you could pay less, but if you still wanted both, you’d pay more.

The Netflix response? Separate the businesses even more. In a new blog post, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings explains that for some reason, he has concluded that separating the businesses completely is going to help people understand what’s going on. Thus, Netflix will not send DVDs at all anymore but will only provide streaming, while the company’s DVD business will happen under the new “Qwikster” brand.

Hastings seems to be operating under the premise that customers don’t really understand what’s going on; that they are angry because they think that a single business has increased its price when in fact it has merely split into two businesses that charge separately. Presumably, the idea is that making the split more definitive will make people slap their foreheads and say, “Oh, now I see. Netflix actually lowered its prices, as long as I don’t buy Qwikster! And new Qwikster is cheaper than old Netflix! I’m coming out ahead, sort of, if I don’t want all the services I used to get!”

The only problems with this approach are that its underlying assumptions are almost certainly wrong, and that it ignores major inefficiencies that will be introduced for customers who do, indeed, want to continue to use both streaming and DVDs. Now, if you want both, you have to go to two different sites with two different queues, you have to pay two different charges to two different entities, and in general, you have to have two different memberships. That’s not psychologically better for consumers. That’s buying two things which are both less helpful than the single thing you could get before.

It’s like a shoe company deciding to sell right shoes and left shoes for 12 dollars each where pairs of shoes used to be 20 dollars and thinking that consumers will notice the lower 12-dollar price but not the fact that it buys only one shoe….

Good response, and I hope NPR will forgive me for quoting it so extensively (please go to NPR and fully experience its services).

Lemme ‘splain somethin’ to you, Mr. Hastings: Neither your DVD service nor your streaming service stands alone; they are complementary. OK, so maybe the DVD service is complete in its way, as a fine service if this were the year 2001. But you and I know (or think we know) that Web streaming is the way the business is going to go, so if you are survive you have to get into that business big. Which you have done.

But here’s the critical point you’re missing: Your streaming business (which you laughably call “instant”) does NOT stand alone. It is not complete. Perhaps you’ve noticed that you are unable to get permission to stream most popular, recent titles. Therefore if your customers want a full service that will provide them with a full selection of the movies and TV shows they want to see, they have to supplement their streaming with DVDs. Which you seemed to get until, quite suddenly, recently.

If I weren’t so dependent on you, I’d drop your service now. But I got rid of my cable (or all of it except local stations, which almost amounts to the same thing), so almost all of the video content I ever watch now comes from you. It’s not the added cost, although that’s not pleasant (I dropped the cable because you were such an economical alternative). It’s the way you’ve done this.

I used to think that Netflix was a company that knew what its customers wanted. Not so much now.

Ideal local TV interview: “Foom! Foom! Foom!”

Power Lines Fall on Crashed Vehicle, Driver Trapped: MyFoxPHOENIX.com

This morning, Jack Kuenzie of WIS brings my attention to this. This guy is being billed on The Daily What as the “Second Coming of Chris Farley,” and I can see that.

I also see a little of Hurley, the guy from “Lost,” even though this guy isn’t nearly as big as either of them. Know what I mean, dude?

The situation was extremely serious — as KSAZ in Phoenix described, “The driver of an SUV was trapped Thursday afternoon when he lost control of his vehicle and it rolled over and struck a utility pole.” But the entertainment value in this description is undeniable.

The new normal: This is what a complete network TV crew looks like today

The other day, I was at the presser at which Jon Huntsman announced that Attorney General Alan Wilson was supporting him (which I still intend to write a post about, but haven’t had time to go back through all my notes), and at one point I happened to look around and think how very, very young most of the media people were.

When I stood in that same place two years ago representing The New York Post, in front of that same (I think) lectern, listening to Mark Sanford tell about his surprise vacation in Argentina, I didn’t think that. I saw mostly usual suspects I had known for years. (Although I did notice in photos of the gaggle later that I had the grayest hair in the bunch. It was one of those “Who’s that old guy? … oh!” moments.)

But the biggest difference between this group and the media mob scenes I experienced when I was as young as these kids were was that the TV crews are so much smaller. As I saw Ali Weinberg of NBC packing up her stuff after, I mentioned to her that back in the day, her network would have a four-person crew covering a presidential candidate: the talent, (at this point she started saying it along with me), the camera guy, the sound guy (and back then those two jobs usually were filled by guys), and the field producer. Now, it’s just her. And she’s in front of the camera, behind the camera, carrying the equipment, handling her own arrangements, Tweeting, and I don’t know what all.

Of course, it’s been this way for several years now. I remember Peter Hamby and others doing the same thing four years ago.

But seeing someone as petite as Ali getting ready to carry all that stuff kind of dramatized the situation. Yes, Ali agreed with me, all told it probably did weigh as much as she does. And no, she didn’t need any help.

Her affiliation reminds me of the NBC crew I kept running across in Iowa in 1980 when I was following Howard Baker, who was running in the caucuses that year. I rode with Jim and Flash (the sound and camera guys, respectively) through an ice storm in a four-seater plane between Des Moines and Dubuque. Just the two of them, the pilot and me. The pilot kept squirting alcohol on the outside of his windshield to make a clear space in the ice about the size of his hand to see through to fly. When we got out on the tarmac — which was covered in ice — I went to put my overcoat back on, and the wind caught it and I started gliding across the runway like a ship on the sea. (I only realized later — after the crash of Air Florida Flight 90 into the Potomac in 1982 — how dangerous that trip was.)

On another occasion, the producer of that crew — a pretty young woman who reminded me of the actress Paula Prentiss — overheard my photographer, Mark, and me discussing where we were going to stay the night and holding open our wallets to see what was left inside. She offered to put us up if we were in a bind. Producers had that kind of cash to throw around in those days. Like Ali today, we said no, thanks.

Those days are long gone.

Video: Sanford takes his “apology” tour national

Here’s video of Mark Sanford with Piers Morgan, tossing him touchy-feely softballs.

It was the usual act that we’ve seen and heard at Rotaries and in other venues across the state, only now it’s going national.

It’s all a bit hard to take, hearing stuff like this: “There’s something sacred about the family unit; I have four boys.” This from the guy who ditched his family, his security detail, his job and the people of South Carolina to spend Father’s Day weekend with his mistress in Argentina. Yes, that’s within the context of expressing regret. But manohman, am I sick of him taking his rather bland and superficial regret public.

Why can’t he shut up about it already? The simple explanation is unavoidable: Mark Sanford is not done inflicting himself on us. He sees this as a stage on his way back. Could I — and all the others who are saying it — be wrong about that? Could it just be his usual narcissism, with no actual political end in sight? I’d love to think so…

(By the way, I would apologize for the fact that both this video and the YouTube version seem to cut off in the middle. But I think you should regard that as a merciful blessing.)

Sanford takes next step on comeback trail tonight

In case you missed it, Mark Sanford is making his second appearance on the comeback trail — not to be confused with that other trail — tonight at 9 p.m. by appearing on CNN live with Piers Morgan:

LIVE: Former Governor Mark Sanford

Mark SanfordIn an in-depth interview, the former Governor of South Carolina opens up about the scandal that caused him to leave office & more.

This is 11 days after his appearance with Sean Hannity on the network where he is most at home. (In case you forget, he appeared on Fox News 46 times during the stimulus fight, before Argentina.)

And what’s all this about? Well, we’d all heard in the past about the possibility that he’d run against Lindsey Graham. But today I heard on the street — or reasonably close to the street — another scary possibility: He wants to be governor again.

Imagine the psychodrama. After the apology tour that seemed like it would never end, but finally did, he’s going to make us prove to him that we really DO forgive him by re-electing him. And the really, really scary part is that we’re highly likely to do that if he demands it of us. Because, let’s face it: We’re pretty messed up, too. We, the South Carolina electorate, have issues.

Anyway, now that he’s on this trail, I for the first time feel truly glad that I gave up cable. I don’t get those channels anymore! I can’t even record it! No one can expect me to watch it! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaahhhhh!…

Oh, no! I appear to be part of a trend…

Tim brings this to my attention:

NEW YORK (AP) — The weak economy is hitting Americans where they spend a lot of their free time: at the TV set.

They’re canceling or forgoing cable and satellite TV subscriptions in record numbers, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of the companies’ quarterly earnings reports.

The U.S. subscription-TV industry first showed a small net loss of subscribers a year ago. This year, that trickle has turned into a stream. The chief cause appears to be persistently high unemployment and a housing market that has many people living with their parents, reducing the need for a separate cable bill.

But it’s also possible that people are canceling cable, or never signing up in the first place, because they’re watching cheap Internet video. Such a threat has been hanging over the industry. If that’s the case, viewers can expect more restrictions on online video, as TV companies and Hollywood studios try to make sure that they get paid for what they produce…

Tim was sympathetic in his comment about it, saying, “Don’t you hate it when you feel like just part of a trend?”

Yes, I do. Makes me feel… common. Low. Might as well start watching “reality TV” on my few remaining channels. That appears to be about all those channels show, anyway.

For the record, I have NOT moved home with my parents — yet. But I am one of those who is watching cheap Internet video instead of cable. I’m halfway through the first season of “Lost” on Netflix so far. The HD picture is awesome. “Lost” is… well, about like I thought “Lost” would be. I am not what you’d call enraptured. But at least I’m finding out what all the fuss was about. Sort of.

This is cool, but the real thing’s better

Mad Men Opening Titles Re-Design from Paul Rogers on Vimeo.

Kathryn brought this video to my attention. Here’s some info about it:

Going an entire summer without Mad Men is frustrating. Thanks to illustrator Paul Rogers, you can get your fix of the stylish era right now. Rogers created a version of the opening credits taking a cue from “classic film and television titles from the early 1960s.” The clip might not be enough to hold you over until January (when the new season of Mad Men begins), but it will make you crave an ice cold martini.

I like it; I think it’s cool. It makes me eager to see the next season.

But I prefer the real credits, with the silhouette guy falling down the side of the building. It suggests the strange darkness of Don Draper’s journey, his alienation, his insecurity. It’s way existential.

These alternative credits just reflect the fun.

What makes a good “Father’s Day movie?”

My daughter noted to me that there were a number of WWII movies on cable today, probably because that’s the TV industry’s idea of what Dads want. I like me a good WWII flick, but I think that having recently dragged out all the good ones for Memorial Day, the programmers were sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel today. The first one I ran across was the execrable “Pearl Harbor,” for instance. Boy I had really looked forward to that one, based on the preview where you see the kids playing baseball (an odd thing to be doing at 7:55 a.m. on a Sunday, but whatever) and the Japanese planes flying by at eye level. And it was visually impressive. Sort of the way “Top Gun” was visually impressive at the time. But even less well-written. And with Ben Affleck.

I saw that TCM was showing “Father of the Bride” (the Spencer Tracy version) which is the opposite end of the spectrum of TV’s concept of Dads and their tastes. I think that particular classic is more entertaining to daughters and  mothers than to Dads, though. I mean, Dad looks like an affectionate idiot, right? Now, I see, “A Few Good Men” is showing. Well, that’s a good flick, no doubt. But who is Dad? Jack Nicholson? Not a flattering picture… Oh, wait, doesn’t Tom Cruise have kind of a father issue in that? But it’s kind of backstory.

So I got to thinking: What WOULD be a good “Father’s Day movie?”

Well… Dads would enjoy “Tin Cup,” which was on today on TCM. Although it doesn’t actually have a fatherhood theme. Speaking of Kevin Costner, there’s always “Field of Dreams” — that certainly has a Dad theme (“Hey… Dad?… You wanna have a catch?” And everyone tears up.)

Speaking of WWII movies, I did record “Saving Private Ryan” on Memorial Day weekend, and watched it again a few days ago. Not exactly about fatherhood, but Capt. Miller does have a sort of model fatherly relationship with Ryan, and with his own men.

On the lighter side, “Overboard,” which TCM showed, is the sort of romantic comedy guys tend to enjoy, and the central character is a Dad, desperate for a Mom for his kids. Really desperate.

OK, it’s not a movie, but how about a “Sopranos” marathon? That’s definitely about being a Dad — and the “head of a family.” Of course, the kids can’t watch it with you. So let me see if I can come up with some better stuff:

  • “Raising Arizona.” ‘Nuff said.
  • “The Natural”… “”My Dad always wanted me to be a baseball player…”
  • “The Paper,” with Michael Keaton. A newspaper editor (whom I really identified with my younger self), struggling with balancing work and familial responsibilities in the 24 hours before his child is born.
  • “The Wind and the Lion.” The Raisuli becomes a surrogate Dad to the Pedicaris boy.
  • “Tender Mercies.” Awesome portrait of a failed Dad, trying to become a good stepdad.
  • Life is Beautiful.” This should probably top the list.
  • “Mr. Mom.” Which the whole family can enjoy.
  • “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Why must it only show at Christmas time?
  • “Hoosiers.” Surrogate-Dad stuff again.
  • “A Man for All Seasons.” An exemplary Dad and a saint.
  • “A River Runs Through It.” Very strong Dad figure in that one — little good it did the Brad Pitt character.
  • “Gran Torino.” Yeah, he’s a dysfunctional Dad, but… the plot’s about him making up for that with the Hmong kid.
  • “Air Force One.” A Dad who’s the president, and can kick bad guy butt!
  • “Say Anything.” Dad turns out to be a crook, but it’s still a strong father-daughter relationship.

That’s a good start for the networks for next year, don’t you think? Have anything to add?

Drat! Foiled again! Curse you, Snidely Obama!

I was WAY busy last night with real-life stuff until about 1:30 a.m. (just wait until YOU have five kids and four grandchildren and everybody’s coming and going and having to be picked up at the airport in the middle of the night), and barely found time to watch some of that presidential debate. I didn’t even have time to think about Nikki Haley’s national TV appearance. Good thing, too.

I did glance at the coverage of it on CBS, and even managed to read on a bit after the horrible shock of the opening words:

Four of the biggest names in the Republican Party – Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Rep. Allen West of Florida, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahom…a

Really. “Biggest names.” Take THAT, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush… I could go on, but what does it matter? They’re nobodies! The peanut gallery is taking over!

It is just absolutely stunning how little one has to accomplish to be one of the “biggest” these days. In fact, in the GOP, accomplishing anything actually counts against you. Look at Romney and health care.

Of course, Nikki Haley is about as accomplishment-free as anyone can get, and by the new standards, that makes her golden. Of course, she likes us to think that she wants to accomplish stuff, but that uncontrollable forces prevent her.

What, you ask, has kept our gov free of the blemish of achievement? Could it be that she lacks good ideas? Could it be that she is clueless when it comes to working with other people who would have to be involved in making these things happen, such as the Republican leadership of the General Assembly? Could it be because of her inept, ham-handed approach to everything from USC trustee appointments to her own tax returns?

No, it’s none of that. There’s another villain, one that no rational person would have suspected in a million years:

Haley went on to say that “everything I’ve tried to do to govern in South Carolina has been stopped by President Obama,”…

Yep, it’s her favorite Snidely Whiplash, the guy she ran so hard against in her election last year (Vincent Sheheen? Who’s he?). He is still foiling her beautiful plans! Curses!

Doug Nye, and the things we remember…

A few days ago, I saw on Facebook where a mutual friend had visited Doug Nye, and he wasn’t doing well. And I thought, “I need to check on him,” and now he’s gone. My mom called me last night to say it was announced at the USC baseball game…

It’s funny the things you remember about people. Doug was a great guy to talk to about all sorts of things, and not just westerns. To many people he will be remembered as the Father of the Chicken Curse, in terms of having popularized the concept. There are complex permutations on the Curse beyond what Bill Starr wrote about this morning that I could get into, but that’s not what I remember best about Doug.

Here’s what I remember best, and most fondly: Doug and I had a number of conversations sharing our childhood memories of watching “Spaceship C-8,” a kiddie show on WBTW out of Florence, hosted by the late “Captain Ashby” Ward, who was also the news anchor. I really didn’t have all that many specific memories about the show (Doug, being older, remembered more), despite having spent many an hour watching it during the summers I spent with my grandparents in Bennettsville. (Doug watched it from another end of the coverage area — I want to say Sumter.) But I enjoyed talking about it with Doug on multiple occasions.

It was about way more than one kid’s show; it was about remembering an era, a time before media saturation. A time when WBTW was the only station you could reliably get clearly in B’ville with a home antenna (WIS also came in, depending on the weather). Then, in the late 60s, along came cable to small town America, LONG before it came to cities. That way, you could get all three networks, plus some duplicates from different cities. There was less demand in cities, because they could already get three or four channels.

Consequently, we spent an awful lot of time doing stuff other than watching TV, or engaging any other mass medium. A time that in many ways was about as close as Huck Finn’s fictional existence as it was to what kids experience today.

Odd, I suppose, that the thing I would remember best from knowing the longtime TV writer was talking about days that were practically pre-TV. But that’s what I remember. It won’t really mean anything to you, I suppose, but I’m confident it would make Doug smile.

I remember that, and the fact that, as I said, Doug was a great guy to talk to about anything. Always a ready grin (that’s why I know he’d smile at my trivial remembrance), the kind of naturally affable guy who you took a moment to chat with rather than just rushing past in the course of getting through a day’s deadlines. He stood out among newspapermen that way. Not that newspapermen were so awful; I just mean Doug stood out. Which is why so many will remember him fondly.

Whew! I feel SO much better…

No doubt you, too, will sleep more soundly once you read this:

Haley dismisses risk of debt
ceiling disaster

… Haley was asked Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” whether the debt ceiling should be raised.

“Absolutely not,” she said. “We are seeing total chaos in D.C. right now. The very first thing they need to do is make sure that they stop raising the debt.”

However, the federal government finances itself partly by selling debt to investors and other countries through Treasury bills that must be paid back, Obama said in a town hall style meeting shown on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“If they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system,” he said, and the result would be a recession worse than the last one.

“So we can’t even get close to not raising the debt ceiling,” Obama said.

Asked about the possibility of damaging America’s credibility, Haley said, “Government is notorious for saying the sky is falling.”…

And remember, our gov knows about money stuff like this. She is a way skillful accountant. Just ask her; she’ll tell you.

Also, she never makes mistakes. Ever. We are in such good hands…

And if you read further in that same story, you encounter this:

“I find it silly,” Haley said about talk of her joining a Republican presidential ticket in 2012.

Right again, governor! Nothing sillier… Told you she was awesome.

Of course, there is a downside to this good news:

Haley said she is committed to serving out her term as governor.

“The people of South Carolina took a chance on electing me,” she said. “It is my job and my family’s job to prove to them that they made a good decision.”

Osama bin Laden is dead. So what happens now?

I originally wrote this BEFORE the president’s announcement. As you can see, I’ve now updated it with the video…

Waiting for President Obama to make the announcement that Osama bin Laden is dead.

And wondering what happens now. I’ve wondered that for 10 years: If bin Laden is dead, what does it change? Does the struggle end? Of course not. He’s now a martyr. But it’s still a huge moment.

And what will the president tell us it means, as he sees it? This is so un-Obama — Under my leadership, we have killed our enemy — what will he say? And what will he tell us to expect next? What will he say HE intends to do?

What does this mean NOW, against the context of the turmoil, the rise of democracy, sweeping through the region?

If I were the president, I’m not sure what I would say. So I’m preparing to watch, and listen.

I expect you are, too.

If you’d like to react, here’s a place to do it…

Best way to get a good grade — have a great relationship with the teacher…

Did you see that our governor has taken a break from writing her memoirs to grade her performance in the few days she’s been in office:

By Dawndy Mercer Plank – bio | email

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – Governor Nikki Haley is touring the state talking about her first 100 days in office, and her hits and misses so far.

The governor is boasting of changing the leadership of the Budget and Control Board, getting Medicaid reform passed, on-the-record voting permanent law, changes to the budget and getting agency directors approved within six weeks time.

We asked Governor Nikki Haley to grade herself on her first 100 days in office. “Effort, absolutely A+++!” she said. “I sleep and breathe this every day. I want everything done yesterday. For accomplishments, I’d honestly give myself an A. We are so excited for what we’ve done in 100 days. We really, really are.”…

Actually, I only heard her say “A-plus,” not “A-plus-plus-plus.” But still…

So now you know what it takes to be a great governor. That, I suppose, is why our past governors haven’t been as “fabulous” as we might have liked: they weren’t “great” wives and moms.

At least, they haven’t been as wildly fabulous as Nikki. Which she has been. Just ask her, she’ll tell you.

I tell you, folks, I’ve encountered a lot of manifestations of ego and narcissism in my going on 4 decades of closely following politics. But I’ve never encountered anything quite like what Nikki Haley has become.

Some of this might actually be a gender thing: Women can get away with a certain over-the-top enthusiasm, even about themselves, that would brand a man a major jerk. Things that a man could NOT get away with can sometimes be seen as charming when said by a woman with a nice smile.

Or maybe I’m completely off-base. I’m just groping here, trying to figure out why she gets away with this stuff…

A defense of public broadcasting, from one who knows whereof she speaks

Sometime today, Senior Correspondent Gwen Ifill of PBS is accepting, on behalf of the PBS Newshour, the 2011 Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Television Political Journalism from the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

She was to be accompanied by Political Editor David Chalian. I don’t know what he was going to say, but here’s a copy of her prepared remarks:

CRONKITE AWARD CEREMONY
Norman Lear Center
(GWEN IFILL’S PREPARED REMARKS)

University of Southern California
APRIL 26, 2011

ON BEHALF OF JIM LEHRER, JUDY WOODRUFF, LINDA WINSLOW OUR EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND DAVID CHALIAN, OUR POLITICAL EDITOR…

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THIS WONDERFUL AWARD, AND FOR ALLOWING US TO JOIN ALL OF THESE AMAZING JOURNALISTS ON THIS STAGE.

IT DOES US ALL GOOD TO SEE THAT – NO MATTER WHAT YOU READ, SEE AND HEAR OUT THERE – SERIOUS JOURNALISM STILL MATTERS.

IT’S ALL I EVER WANTED TO DO, AND I THINK I SPEAK FOR EVERYONE HERE IN SAYING THAT WE ARE DRAWN TO JOURNALISM FOR THE NOBILITY THAT CAN BE FOUND IN TELLING UNTOLD STORIES, OR IN SHEDDING LIGHT RATHER THAN HEAT ON THE OVERTOLD ONES. MOST OF US GOT INTO JOURNALISM TO SAVE THE WORLD…AND THEN REALIZED WE OFTEN HAD TO SAVE THE WORLD FROM US.

I REALIZE I AM PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE TODAY, SO I PROBABLY DON’T HAVE TO TELL THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, THIS IS TOUGHER THAN IT SEEMS.

FOR MOST OF US, IT MEANS DOING MORE WITH LESS ON A DAILY BASIS. RESISTING THE LURE OF A CHARLIE SHEEN STORY ONE DAY OR ANOTHER ROYAL WEDDING CURTAIN RAISER ON ANOTHER.

AT THIS POINT IN MY CAREER, I’VE WORKED FOR NEWSPAPERS, AT A COMMERCIAL NETWORK AND NOW AT PUBLIC BROADCASTING, WHERE LIKE CLOCKWORK, WE ARE PERIODICALLY ACCUSED  BY THOSE ON THE RIGHT AND THOSE ON THE LEFT
OF BIAS. TOO MANY OF THESE CRITICS DON’T ACTUALLY WATCH OR LISTEN TO WHAT WE DO.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

JUDY WOODRUFF AND I TAKE YOU AROUND THE COUNTRY TO GET TO THE HEART OF OUR NATIONAL POLITICAL DEBATE…MARGARET WARNER AND RAY SUAREZ TAKE YOU TO NORTH KOREA AND GUATEMALA AND EGYPT AND SOUTH AFRICA TO TALK ABOUT GLOBAL HEALTH AND GLOBAL CHALLENGES.

ROBIN MCNEIL JUST COMPLETED A SIX-PART SERIES ON AUTISM, DEVOTING THE KIND OF TIME AND CARE TO THE TOPIC THAT FILLS A VOID IN THE DEARTH OF DOCUMENTARY TELEVISION.

AND AFTER 35 YEARS, WE’RE JUST GETTING STARTED. LAST WEEK AT THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE GULF OIL SPILL, WE LOOKED BACK AND COUNTED 232 STORIES WE’D DONE ON THE TOPIC….AND NOT JUST ON THE AIR.

OUR ONLINE OIL SPILL WIDGET WAS EMBEDDED ON MORE THAN 6,000 WEBSITES AROUND THE WORLD AND WAS VIEWED MORE THAN 20 MILLION TIMES.

WE ARE CONVINCED THAT TELLING THE STORY WELL MATTERS – WHETHER IT’S JEFF BROWN’S CONVERSATION LAST YEAR WITH THE WAR PHOTOGRAPHER TIM HETHERINGTON, WHO WAS KILLED LAST WEEK IN LIBYA… OR JOHN MERROW ON EDUCATION… OR PAUL SOLMAN MAKING SENSE OF ECONOMICS… OR HARI SREENIVASAN HONCHOING OUR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COVERAGE.

IF IT SOUNDS LIKE I’M BOASTING, YOU’RE RIGHT. WE ARE JUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF WHAT WE DO, AND ARE CONVINCED THAT EVEN IN A DRASTICALLY SHIFTING MEDIA ENVIRONMENT THERE IS A HUNGER FOR THE WORK WE DO.

WHEN I VISIT COLLEGE CAMPUSES, STUDENTS OFTEN TELL ME “I ONLY WATCH JON STEWART.” AND I TELL THEM: “JON STEWART WATCHES ME.”

NOT TO WORRY. WALTER CRONKITE ONCE TOLD ME HE WATCHED THE PBS NEWSHOUR EVERY NIGHT TOO.

THAT’S BECAUSE JOURNALISM, AND EVEN FAUX JOURNALISM, CAN ONLY FLOURISH WITH A FIRM FOUNDATION.

AT THE PBS NEWSHOUR, OUR FIRM FOUNDATION IS JIM LEHRER. FROM THE DAY HE CREATED THE PROGRAM WITH ROBIN MACNEIL UNTIL NOW, WHEN HE APPLIES HIS CONVICTIONS AND HIS CORE BELIEFS TO THE BROADCAST EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, HE IS OUR GUIDING STAR – TRULY THE CAPTAIN OF THE TEAM.

SO THAT’S WHAT WE DO. THAT’S WHAT MORE OF US CAN DO. AND ON DAYS LIKE TODAY, I AM REMINDED OF HOW MANY MORE WHO ARE DOING IT. AND WELL.

WE MIGHT NOT BE SAVING THE WORLD, BUT AT LEAST WE ARE MAKING IT A MORE UNDERSTANDABLE PLACE TO LIVE IN.

ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE NORMAN LEAR CENTER AT USC ANNENBERG FOR THIS MARVELOUS WALTER CRONKITE AWARD.——-

Admittedly, I don’t see PBS as much as I listen to NPR, but to a great extent the praise I often offer to NPR can apply to the television counterpart: I seldom encounter better journalism anywhere. Ms. Ifill mentions the interview with Tim Hetherington… one of the things that consistently amazes me is how comprehensively public broadcasting covers things that just happened (often fleshing it out with a recent interview with the person who is in the news). They present information so thoughtfully, so soberly and completely, that it generally exceeds the best that print can offer. And I can’t say that about anything else on broadcast media.

By the way, I’m available for that Aflac gig

Don’t think it would have occurred to me to wonder about this at any point in my newspaper life, but now that I’m into the whole marketing/PR/Mad Man thing now, I find myself wondering about stuff like this…

So I hear that Aflac has fired Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of their duck. You know, the one that says “Aflac!” Here’s something about it, although you’ve probably already heard:

He’ll quack for Aflac no more.

Insurance giant Aflac axed comic Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of its iconic duck yesterday after he posted jokes on Twitter about the quake and tsunami in Japan.

“I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, ‘They’ll be another one floating by any minute now,’ ” was among the dozen tweets Gottfried fired off over the weekend….

I first heard about it at breakfast this morning, and didn’t think anything of it (no skin off my beak), then heard it again at ADCO later, and at that point thought, “Wait a minute…”

Why, I wonder, did they turn to Gilbert Gottfried to do the Aflac duck to begin with? I mean, he’s moderately famous, although irritating, and you pay a premium for that. Agents to feed and all. What was the value they got from that?

Because, while I was well aware of the ad campaign — it’s memorable, and sort of clever in an absurd way — I never knew that that was Gilbert Gottfried doing it. Sure, when you hear it, it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried… but it sounds like Gilbert Gottfried when I say “Aflac!” in a nasal quack, too. (Brian from ADCO agreed when he heard me do it at lunch today. I don’t just say these things, people; I check to confirm first. Back off; I’m a professional.)

It really doesn’t take any special talent. And unless they were getting a bounce from people knowing it was Gottfried, why pay him to do it?

So… here’s what I’m thinking. If Aflac is hard up, I’ll do the duck voice for them from now on. I might even do it at a discount from what they were paying Gottfried. And I won’t make horrible jokes about the poor Japanese, or any other suffering people.

I can use the phone to get that new iPhone or HTC Thunderbolt (which I think is coming out Thursday!) or whatever I get to replace my moribund Blackberry, which is definitely on its last legs. So this couldn’t have happened at a better time.

I hope I’m making this offer in time, before they line up someone else… You gotta move fast these days…

Never fear, our gov is on the job

Not sure what to make of our governor appearing on Season 5, Episode 2 of “Army Wives” last night, except to say that she certainly stays busy, writing memoirs, pestering the president about health care, appearing on TV shows, and… probably other highly relevant governing-South Carolina stuff, too, but I just can’t keep up.

No word yet (unless I just missed it) on what this appearance means in terms of the governor’s position on this actual state issue:

The show’s producers say it contributed more than $120 million to the local economy when they threatened last year to move production elsewhere if economic incentives for filmmakers were not renewed by state lawmakers.

No, wait — there’s this from Politico:

Though Biden’s “Army Wives” cameo came and went last August without controversy, Haley’s appearance is causing some buzz. As a South Carolina state rep, Haley voted against taxpayer-funded incentives for the film industry. Incentives were put into place in 2005, and since “Army Wives” began filming in the Palmetto State, the show has contributed more than $120 million to the local economy, according to producers.

Despite then-Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto, which Haley supported, South Carolina lawmakers voted in June to keep the film incentives program intact.

Still, according to Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey, the governor was happy to appear on the show. He told the AP, “The governor absolutely enjoyed the opportunity—any chance to showcase our great state and highlight military families is a reason to get excited.”

OK, so I still don’t know where she stands on the incentives — now. Perhaps that will be forthcoming…

No, hold on… it looks like The Post and Courier approached this as an actual news story, and had the following:

Haley’s Press Secretary Rob Godfrey said the governor was happy to make the appearance. She was not paid for the cameo, which was filmed in Charleston on Jan. 7 before she was sworn in as governor.

“The governor absolutely enjoyed the opportunity to appear on Army Wives — as she would any chance to showcase our great state and highlight our military families on national television,” Godfrey said in an e-mail. “The governor has said she will do whatever she can to showcase the great things going on in our state, especially those things that aren’t and shouldn’t be on the public dime.

“As is the case in any economic development situation, the governor will always look at film incentives from a cost-benefit perspective. If incentives going forward cost the state more than they bring in — as they have in the past — then she won’t support them.”

Phil Bailey, spokesman for the Senate Democratic Caucus, said Haley’s appearance on the show is an example of her “hypocrisy.”

“She votes against the economic incentive package to keep this show here in South Carolina — which is a vote against the show — but then she makes an appearance on the show,” Bailey said. “It’s obviously only an attempt to increase her own celebrity.”

Yep, that’s the Phil Bailey from Pub Politics. I mean, that’s what’s important, right — our media profiles? Oh, I saw her on TV; I think I’ll vote for her…

No word as yet on whether Phil Bailey will appear on “Army Wives,” but I’ll let you know if I hear anything.

But really, what DO you say?

Trav Robertson, as we saw him during the 2010 campaign.

Still sort of reeling from this discombobulation called Daylight Savings, and having had three glasses of sweet tea with my lunch at Seawell’s — to no noticeably helpful effect — I decided to do a wide swing through Five Points to get some REAL caffeine at Starbucks on my way back to the office.

So I got my tall Pike, and once again impressed the baristas with my fancy gift card from across the sea (thanks, Mr. Darcy!), and on my way out ran into Trav Robertson, whom I hadn’t seen since the election. Trav, if you’ll recall, managed Vincent Sheheen’s almost, but not quite, campaign for governor last year.

We chatted for a moment, mainly about the state of news media today and how it relates to politics (he said one of the toughest things he found to adjust to in the campaign was this newfangled notion that the story changes at least four times in the course of what we once so quaintly called a “news cycle”), and we parted, and as I walked back toward my truck, who was coming up the steps from Saluda but Larry Marchant. He smiled and we shook hands, and turning back to see Trav standing at the coffee shop door, I said, “Well, here’s you, and here’s Trav Robertson — we’ve just got everybody here, Democrats and Republicans…” as I moved on toward my vehicle.

Which is a pretty stupid and meaningless thing to say, but what DOES one say in such a social situation? I mean, I’m not gonna say, “Well, lookee here, we’ve got Trav, whose candidate lost a close election to a woman you claimed to the world to have slept with, and I last saw you being made fun of by Jon Stewart….”

No, I don’t think so.

And really, I suppose it’s not all that cool to say it here on the blog, either, but… it seems to me there’s a social commentary in here somewhere, having to do with Moynihan’s concept of Defining Deviance Down or whatever. And when I say “deviance,” I’m not picking on Larry or anybody else, but talking about us, the people who are the consumers of such “news.”

I mean, how does one conduct himself in polite society — or any society — in which such things are discussed, disclosed, dissected and displayed publicly? Actually, “publicly” isn’t quite the word, is it? Doesn’t quite state the case. Way more intense than that.

If you’re Jon Stewart, life is simple. You make a tasteless joke or two, get your audience to laugh, and move on to the next gag. But what do you say if you’re just a regular person out here in the real world, and you run into the real people about whom these jokes are made?

Whatever the right thing is, I haven’t figured it out, so today I just fell back on the time-honored stratagem of ignoring any weirdness inherent in the situation, and saying something insipid. Which, in this polite state of ours, still works.

As for Trav and Larry — did they speak after I left? Do they even know each other? If they spoke, what did they speak about? I have no idea. I retreated to the office with my coffee.

Larry Marchant, as we saw him during the 2010 campaign.

Just FYI: “Watson” can’t “think”

Last week, I saw this interesting piece in the WSJ that I meant to pass on, and I will now, in case there are some of you feeling terribly inadequate (as a species) because “Watson” won on “Jeopardy.”

The headline and subhed state the case well:

Watson Doesn’t Know It Won on ‘Jeopardy!’

IBM invented an ingenious program—not a computer that can think.

But if you read on, you get a better explanation of why one would not say that “Watson” thinks:

Imagine that a person—me, for example—knows no Chinese and is locked in a room with boxes full of Chinese symbols and an instruction book written in English for manipulating the symbols. Unknown to me, the boxes are called “the database” and the instruction book is called “the program.” I am called “the computer.”

People outside the room pass in bunches of Chinese symbols that, unknown to me, are questions. I look up in the instruction book what I am supposed to do and I give back answers in Chinese symbols.

Suppose I get so good at shuffling the symbols and passing out the answers that my answers are indistinguishable from a native Chinese speaker’s. I give every indication of understanding the language despite the fact that I actually don’t understand a word of Chinese.

And if I do not, neither does any digital computer, because no computer, qua computer, has anything I do not have. It has stocks of symbols, rules for manipulating symbols, a system that allows it to rapidly transition from zeros to ones, and the ability to process inputs and outputs. That is it. There is nothing else….

All the same, as in the original Chinese room, the symbols are meaningless to Watson, which understands nothing. The reason it lacks understanding is that, like me in the Chinese room, it has no way to get from symbols to meanings (or from syntax to semantics, in linguistic jargon). The bottom line can be put in the form of a four-word sentence: Symbols are not meanings.

Feel better? Whether you do or not, it’s useful from time to time to stop and think about what computers actually are.

UK deals properly with Assange — which reminds me of something funny

Have you seen the latest? A UK court has decided to send Julian Assange where he belongs:

A U.K. court ordered that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be extradited to Sweden to face questioning about sexual-assault allegations, dealing a serious blow to the document-leaking site and its founder.

The decision means that Mr. Assange’s efforts to build and promote WikiLeaks will be detoured to some degree in coming months by the possibility that he will face criminal sex charges. WikiLeaks has gained notoriety with governments around the world through its release of thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables.

Sweden hasn’t formally charged Mr. Assange with a crime, but wants to question him over allegations that he raped one woman and molested another during a visit to Stockholm last August. He denies any wrongdoing and said he will appeal the U.K. decision.

Good. Whatever the outcome of that case, if he is charged, Assange should be there to face the court’s decision.

But while he may be a super-creepy guy (and, say some, a rapist), he can still inspire some decent comedy. I loved this Bill Hader skit from back before Christmas, and today’s news reminded me of it.

In the skit, Assange hacks into a broadcast Mastercard commercial — from his jail cell in Britain (how did he do that? “Maybe you weren’t listening — I’m Julian Assange!” — and issues threats to the world if he is not released, with his “punishments” escalating each day he is held. Such as:

  • Day three. Facebook: You know that one profile picture that makes you look thin? It’s gone. Boo-hoo….
  • Day five, Netflix. Have you seen the fourth season of “Hanging with Mr. Cooper?” You’re ABOUT to. It’s first on your queue…
  • And if I’m incarcerated for one whole week, we start messing with porn sites — the FREE ones. Ooooh — got your attention NOW, do I?

Of course, it’s funnier the way Hader does it. There’s also a good Osama bin Laden joke — but I won’t spoil that. Enjoy.

My exchange with “Jayne Cobb”

Today, we descend into the dubious ground of celebrity name-dropping…

One of my favorite things that’s ever been on television was “Firefly,” the space western (you have to watch it to grok that description) that lasted less than a season several years ago — which says about everything that needs to be said about commercial television.

My favorite character on the show was Jayne Cobb. Actually, he’s my public, admitted favorite character. My actual, secret favorite is Kaylee, but being a happily married guy, I don’t want to admit that, so my official favorite is Jayne.

Jayne is, that is, was played by Adam Baldwin, who has a Twitter feed that differs from other Hollywood actors’ in that you won’t read Tweets like, “Yoga class was awesome today! Off to a lunch, then rehearsal.”

Mr. Baldwin tweets about politics, and from a decidedly, shall we say, muscular conservative perspective (even though he apparently once Tweeted this).

Last night, I saw this post:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

“Repressive Tolerance”: http://bit.ly/efIXeq ->http://bit.ly/fVwiF -> http://bit.ly/18ScHT ->http://bit.ly/fivqAt = #RepressiveCivility

This really impressed me. I hadn’t heard that phrase since I had studied the absurd theories of Herbert Marcuse, the intellectual father of the New Left, who game up with the Orwellian-sounding concept of “repressive tolerance.” Which, in my paraphrase, means that liberal societies are repressive because they manipulate people by being… tolerant. In other words, they absorb, co-opt and redirect revolutionary fervor by not particularly caring about it. This makes people who really, really want to be angry revolutionaries even angrier, of course, because it makes it impossible for them to keep others angry. You’re a revolutionary — red rag on your head and everything — and you’re like, “We demand reform!” and the maddening liberal society goes, “OK, here’s your reform,” and next thing you know, nobody cares enough to show up at your revolutionary cell meetings, and you’re like all ticked. OK, go read another definition if you don’t like that one.

We UnPartisans are often amused by the silly things that theorists come up with on the right AND the left, and Marcuse was one of the leading unintentional jesters of the left.

Anyway, I was impressed enough to reTweet this:

Brad Warthen

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen

Wow! A TV actor citing Marcuse! RT @adamsbaldwin: “Repressive Tolerance”:http://bit.ly/efIXeq -> http://bit.ly/fVwiF->…

And to my amazement, I quickly got this reply:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Herbert Marcuse, an #IntellectualMoron –> http://bit.ly/5NyBMx

So I’m like:

Brad Warthen

@BradWarthenBrad Warthen
@adamsbaldwin Oh, I agree, Adam. I just thought it was cool that you mentioned him. Haven’t run across his silly concept since college…

Because I’m thinking, “I don’t want to tick off Jayne Cobb. You know how he is.” And then he’s like:

Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwinAdam Baldwin

@BradWarthen Seen this one:http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20(2).pdf

Of course, the Obama/Alinsky connection wasn’t new to me, although I don’t fret about it the way people on the right do. But I then answered with these two Tweets:

@adamsbaldwin Nope, but that reminds me. I’ve been meaning to read the recent biography of Alinksy, “Radical” http://j.mp/dIka9R

@adamsbaldwin Of course, since it’s written by Nicholas Von Hoffman, it’s an “homage.” But if you know that, it still can be informative…

I figured I’d better add that last bit, since he was likely to dismiss it from such a source, and I wanted to head that off.

Then, I went home for the day, and didn’t get any more Tweets from Mr. Baldwin. Nor did I send any. But I enjoyed it while it lasted. And now, I’ll be interested to see whether an exchange like that with someone with almost 50,000 followers will boost my own followership (and ultimately, blog readership, which for me is the point of social media).

Can’t tell yet…