Slashdot Mirror
You're Watching Less TV
NickFusion writes "With a plethora of online games, chat, IM, email and, well, Slashdot, who's got time to watch television? Evidently, not men ages 18-34. The NY Times (free reg, etc) takes a look at the issue and comes to conclusions that will shock, I say shock, the average Slashdot reader. Meanwhile, Fox Broadcasting Corp. is calling for a recount. Disclosure: I'm quoted in the NY Times article, and so is one Rob Malda. Mom will be so proud!"
Well, lets see: with my research occupying upwards of 80-90 hours a week working, including some time posting on Slashdot :-), who has time for TV?
Seriously though, I mark my time online historically with the first major news announcement I heard online before I heard it via television. That news item was the Oklahoma city bombing of the Federal Building. Since then I have received most of my news items online rather than through traditional outlets. Even as a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, I get most of my content online.
Additionally, with the increasing productivity of the average American worker just trying to keep their jobs, one might suppose that the Internet provides for a more flexible media resource outlet allowing folks to customize their news searches without having to wait through the tripe and entertainment garbage that Fox News and more recently CNN et. al. have been delivering.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
We still watch good ol' broadcast TV every now and then, and we still have favorite shows, but we really don't watch much TV, simply because TV has been replaced by the Internet for instant-access news, information, and interactive entertainment. Cable just isn't worth it anymore.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
lets not forget that there is pecious little watchable programming on any channel, especially on the big networks...
oh yeah... did I get first post??? BOOYA!
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
This is a product of the fact that people want to be able to reclaim their time. That is to say, letting a box push information to them at it's own speed is a waste of time and doesn't give them exactly what they want.
TV isn't going anywhere though, as soon as the TV companies get off their collective butts and get more and more on-demand TV then viewers will return to that medium (even if it is through their computer/digital entertainment unit).
The days of people flipping through channels are ending, and the days of people flipping through menus of available media better be coming soon, or else they risk alienating a generation of people who don't have the time/desire to waste their life waiting for a show to start.
I don't know about the other guys in that age range - but who wants to watch all these reality shows? I had hard enough time keeping up with season 10 of a normal show, now theres season 5 of ppl doing weird stuff on tv.
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
You'd think TiVo and other PVR's (Replay, Myth, Sage) would lead to increased TV viewing, but I would argue it keeps you from watching that piece of junk between two shows you actually care about. That gets you out of the habit of just mentally grazing TV and into the habit of active viewing
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
And the same will happen when a new medium appears.
Number of entertainment forms increase while number of hours per week stays the same, therefore average number of hours spent on the old medium per person decrease as number of hours spent on the new medium increase said Dr It'sFuckingObvious in a press release today.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Its more cost effective for me to not buy cable; which is about the cost of two uncapped DSL lines both with static IP's in my area. Instead, I buy the occasional DVD when I'm in the mood for a movie.
Another reason is that during the winter when you can actually go outside and not die of heat exhaustion I can sit on my patio with my laptop and wireless and use the net. If I want to watch TV then I'm stuck inside watching it inside.
I think the media companies are going to have to deal with this trend. As much as they would like to turn the Inter-web into a one-way communications medium like TV, its just not going to happen. Thats one of the big draws. I don't have to view your crappy commercials or just be a passive consumer of information.
If nothing else, the blogging fad is a big validator of the fact that people like to speak out in communications as much as absorb (well, most of us).
Good Point.
But are you watching the advertisements?
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
I love these TV execs who are whining. "The numbers don't add up!" "How could they not be watching are ever-wonderful "Ass Crap Reality Show"? Everyone loves it!"
Give me a break. As a geek who doesn't even own a tv right now I don't miss watching TV at all. When we moved into our house I had to sell my TV (65in Sony HDTV - boo hoo) and the only reason I want a new TV is for three things: DVDs, XBox, PS2, all of which I have hooked up to old 20in computer monitors.
The message is clear, your shows suck, and while watching drama queens fight over getting to stay on the island might interest younger women, it does absolutely nothing for young men.
Casual Games/Downloads
I used to plop down on the sofa at night afraid I'd "miss something", I would watch my favorite shows (simpsons,futurama,poker) and usually flip around while waiting for the next one.
Now that I have a TiVO (with dual tuner of course), I can look through all of the movies that will be on in the next three weeks and see if I want to watch any of them. I can tell if next week's poker game is one I have seen already, etc.
With sufficient planning, I can come home and play UT2004 or with the wife (no really!) all evening, without the nagging voice in the back of my head saying "there is media you want to be absorbing, and you're missing it!"
I suspect TiVO, by giving people the ability to plan and schedule their own viewing lets them cut out the crap they would usually sit through in the middle of the evening.
I guess that's what happens when TV is flooded w/ pointless reality TV shows. Congrats, they appeal (mostly) to women and surprise!, a lot of men eventually stop watching TV. The only TV show I watch is Simpsons, and it is annoying as hell to hear all that american idol singing in the other room (girlfriend watches it) while I'm on the interweb.
Maybe it's just me, but, sure it can!
Why is it so hard to believe that intelligent males in the 18-24 demographic are just watching those programs that interest them? It seems to me that this is a sign of television's viewing audience rejecting most of the mindless drivel that they put on these days.
After all, it used to be fine for me (when I was about 5 years younger) to just mope around the house watching whatever was on. But these days, I'm busy with life, so I just make an effort to watch those shows that I like. I think that is the real issue here.
Sure, most sitcoms are just rehashing old (or sometimes current) ideas, and here are other issues people have been bringing up why television will fail, but I think the real reason we are seeing a declins it that computer games and apps (like IM) offer interaction. You can't get that with TV. Its as simple as that.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
All the information I *want* is right there at my fingertips - not just the stuff the media wants to either shove down my throut or not give me enough information on.
Then there's the quality of the movies and other tv shows that are just poor. Very few channels have anything that's worth scheduling a night for - like 'The Shield,' 'CSI,' or something on the Discovery or History Channel.
Information wise, the Internet brings what I want, when I want and at what level I want 24/7/365(6).
No hurry indeed.
Not only do I lack the time to watch TV, I dont have the time to watch the shows I download!
I've got a piles of CDRs that are THIS HIGH, waiting to be watched.
Feels like I'm starting to have a mindless collection habit, like those people who collect beer bottle caps or something.
It could just be that there's absolutely nothing worth watching on TV anymore... Wonder if those TV Execs thought about that when they started ranting and raving.
Face it, folks. Television is 99% crap.
At least one-third of the daily broadcast schedule is infomercials. Most of the "cable" channels run only popular shows from other networks, or heavily edited movies over and over and over again, basically just to fill time.
Television advertising is grating, patronizing, lowest-denominator sludge which subtly insults as it offers suburban paradise with five-figure price tags to minimum-wage consumers, and interrupts the crappy programming eight times an hour to do so.
Sitcoms aren't funny. Dramas are political speeches. The local news is a carnival barker, and reality programming is nothing but a metaphor of a society fascinated by the misfortune of the powerless.
There hasn't been a meaningful sentence spoken on television in decades.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
What a pathetic group of people
With T.V. I can have tripe like "Yes Dear" forced upon me or I can view meaningful content on demand via the internet.
For example, I can pay $80/mo. for standard, no movie channel cable from Time Warner and get news fed to me in 30 minute bursts or I can pay $8.95/mo. for internet access and read in-depth studies from sites like foreign affairs. I can be a better parent and read about my gifted son's condition and learn from it on the internet or I can sit on my ass and watch Temptation Island.
T.V. no longer consistently delivers meaningful content (if it ever did). Heck even formerly great channels like TLC have relegated themselves to regurgitating reruns of While You Were Out.
The entire media industry is sooo out of touch with the populace and clearly have no clue how to react and change to an increasingly digital lifestyle so many of us are adopting.
remember when the writers threatened to go on strike? The studios should have done to them what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. Fired em!! Maybe some new blood would have gotten into tv and movies instead of the constant remakes , rehashing of old tv shows, formula TV based on what some advertising weenie thinks we all want to see
Never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm
I'm turning 35 in a few months...does that mean I'll have to start watching more TV?
No, but you will bring these habits forward into more demographics until it becomes the norm.... which is what they are afraid of.
What broadcasters need to do, IMO, is simply cut back on the costs of programming, then they wouldn't be whining and complaining that we're off doing something more useful (yes, at least playing games is more interactive).
The biggest problem I have with TV is commercials. Cut down the commercials, and I'd watch more. I realize that's how they make money, but it's beyond my ability to see as many commercials as there are for the precious little content I'm getting.
So: quit paying people Jennifer Anniston and Matt LeBlanc millions of dollars per episode, cut back on the commercials, and you'll get more viewers.
I'd even equate it with taxes: by lowering taxes the government is making more money per capita then it was before. Sure, revenues are still down, but not as much as the tax cut was. I'd say cutting commercials would not hurt television as much as it would immediately seem to - because more people would watch and they could charge more for commercials.
I suppose, then, they'd start getting greedy and we'd repeat the whole process all over again...
Stupid sexy Flanders.
That's enough to explain it. Simple price competition. High-speed Internet penetration is growing rapidly and is expected to pass cable TV in about two years. Cable has been stuck at 66% for years, while broadband is already somewhere in the 45% range.
Not having cable TV, I had no idea people were paying $79 a month for a basic tier of channels. I thought it was still around $18.
I'm 30 and I junked my TV at my last apartment in 1998. I think the weirdest thing is trying to watch tv when I'm visiting other people or sitting in a waiting room. It's the same thing as not eating sugar for months/years then eating something like a cookie and thinking: what the hell is this revolting shit that I used to consume by the bagload?
I don't really understand the emotional backlash from tv-viewers who think the non-tv people have a superiority complex but I suspect it's similar reaction with smokers vs non-smokers, fatties vs exercisers, SUV-drivers vs non-SUV-drivers and all the other great emotion-laden topics of this world that require masses of cognitive dissonance to justify expensive and unhealthy weirdness to calm an overy-anxious soul: excessive spending, tv-watching, eating, smoking, drinking just to calm down and forget about "the crappy universe" that's out to get you.
For the record, I used to be most of these things which probably makes me even more annoying than an ex-smoker. All that stuff you don't have time for (preparing food, exercising outdoors, enjoying nature, sex, talking, reading, thinking) you now have time for.
As for the trollers who say reading Slashdot takes up time... hm. Yes, about 20 minutes to read newspapers and slashdot online and make a comment. Not exactly in the same realm as tv-watching.
Talking to people whose lives revolve around work and tv is like talking to a Pepsi vending machine.
Enough already! What's against posting this in the main article? And if anything is, can't slashdot make a deal with NY times? It is not that the slashdot community never visits the times site or something like that. Now I either have to look at the "free link" article or lookup my once generated password. And hell if I can find that if I need it. Or bother to do it.
Too bad the article does not talk about any youths reading books now-a-days. Is this really true. Are video games and porn really taking over their lives that much?
Uhhh...maybe because we find it entertaining? You don't, and thats just fine. You do what you want and I'll do what I want.
Personally I don't understand how people can spend more than 2 hours a week on slashdot much less spend money to see stories before other people.
True about the reality thing... ever since big brother, the number of shows that are 'reality tv' have increased dramatically.. including a bagillion new shows and some older ones that have sort of intertwined with the reality tv format.
Back when i was in high school i used to watch X-Files and that was about it. When I got to college I watched a lot of simpsons and futurama. Then I discovered the campus network and realized I didnt have to turn on the TV at weird hours to watch my shows. Then I got further into my major and my tv became disconnected from everything but my home theater setup.
I'd rather be -in- the simpsons with Hit and Run on gamecube or watching the simpsons episodes with commentary or being able to pick an episode i like than having to watch it on tv when they tell me and sit through the ads.
Most of the time, even if i like a series on TV, ala West Wing, Alias, Osbournes, etc., I wait until they come out on DVD so I can watch at my leisure. I could buy a tivo, but the initial cash output is too high. Id rather have the special features, plus DVD sound and progressive scan is the only way to watch.
The day they have HD TV on Demand, where a show becomes available to watch at X time and Y date, and then you can pick from available shows any time, day or night (even if you have to sit through some commercials), I'm in. But I think theyll ultimately need to go commercial free subscription service on a pay per viewing scheme or an ulimited scheme for more money. Maybe pay by airtime. That way if I have a busy month and watch an hour of TV i only pay for an hour of TV plus some base monthly rate. Then if i watch a thousand hours, i fall into the X hours and over group and pay some flat rate.
The TV Industry and the music industry have a lot to learn and fast, about what the people want and what the people will tolerate and for how long.
I hear that Alistair Cooke has passed away, on the radio on the way in to work and I can do a search through Google News and get a bit more information from choosing a source or two. I couldn't do this with TV, maybe someday we will, eh? TV films things and you get to pick and choose what you want to watch, they show you a commercial at the end of the clip or you simply pay to see it, ala carte. Content on Demand.
I left the TV for my video games and surfing over a decade ago. Too many other things to do or learn about than have my brain turned to mush with sitcoms or Oprah.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...I'd watch more. Family Guy, Firefly, even Seven Days; all shows that I loved watching that got nixed at various points before their time. They kill a good show, and 4 reality shows arise in its place. Its the nastiest hydra the industry has come up with in a long time.
As it is now, I've got FG on dvd, I've recorded every ep of Seven Days, I've seen every ep. of ST:TNG multiple times, and I'll be getting the Firefly dvds as soon as monetary situation allows. So why should I keep watching TV? Enterprise is utter crap. Reality TV is of course abysmal and should just go away entirely. And I've never liked a sitcom really. They all annoy me. The really creative/funny shows are marginalized and replaced to pander to the demographics, and when the demographics dont like whats being pandered to them, the producers just don't understand why...
Its the same reason I don't even bother going to the movie theatre anymore. Went to see LotR, and thats the last movie I see myself paying for in theatres for a long time. Even Pixar's newest offerings will probably be relegated to 'wait for dvd' status. I'd rather spend $15 on a dvd than go see a movie in theatres, as its not much more pricewise and I can then view multiple times. And since 90% of my favorite tv shows are either on DVD now, or coming to DVD soon, why should I keep watching it live with commercials?
Sorry, wandered around a bit there, but just felt like ranting some.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Reading the parent made me wonder if a lot of mod's had the wool pulled over their eyes... Sounds like trolling to me. But, since it's +4 interesting... I'll feed. Who do you think pays for those high quality Soprano's productions? The suckers who don't have broadband + a burner? What happens when they dry up, no one subscribes to HBO, and we all want our entertainment for free? Guess what... no Sopranos. Yes, the entertainment industry needs to grok the net and it's capabilities / appeals. But don't kid yourself - as a pirate, you are violating copyright laws and contributing to the decline of quility programming on TV. Less cash from the customers = less output, plain and simple (Enron economics aside).
Years ago.. when CDs came out.. I loved the fact I could listen to music and skip to tracks I like quickly.. couldn't do that with tapes. We had the VCR which allowed me to access tv programs when I wanted to as well. Some call this time-shifting.. and some call it stealing because you don't see the commercials.
Why I stopped watching:
1) I lost the ability to have what I wanted at a reasonable cost and reasonable fair use.
2) Companies did not give me the choice to subscribe to the channels I wanted... so I saw that my value per dollar go down steadily through time.
3) Companies are running a relatively unviable business - it's dependant on selling advertising (or so they say).
I thought that if I paid for my shows.. I was paying for my shows... apparently the shows require a subsidy. So.. this whole industry requires subsidies from secondary industry. Does this not strike you as a precarious position? What hubris to think that your programming would continually survive without innovation.
My point is.. much like other traditional media industries in the United States, they are dependant on old systems and politics which give them money to keep them in business.
If something better comes along.. guess what.. people want it. They will do everything in their power and means to grab it.. to hold it.. to cherish it.
Don't spank them for wanting what they want. Offer them the choice... the new innovation.. the options and they will spend their time and their money.
To do otherwise is to insult your customers. Guess that's already happened... the customers are more saavy these days.. and they speak with their time and their money... they choose alternatives because someone else has figured out how to grab their attention.
So I vote with my wallet and support what I like... I don't like having to pay for channels I don't need. I don't like having to buy 18 songs when I only want 3. I guess I won't waste my time or my money on something I don't want.
I guess that those industries will suffer under their own weight because they can't support themselves due to a flawed business model.
I guess I'll go read my news and mail from the Internet... or maybe I'll stop buying fast food and start working out.. maybe I'll start being healthy again. Hmmm?
What will YOU do?
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
Interesting to note how many times TiVo is mentioned in the posts. I bought one three years ago, and can honestly say watching TV w/o a DVR is almost impossible for me now. That's not to say I don't watch ads anymore, either. A few will actually capture my attention as I fast forward, the rest are ignored. I've always thought DVRs could be really good for advertising, once ad agencies figure out how to exploit their characteristics. But as usual, big media reaches for the lawyers instead.
The networks views of video games sure miss the mark, too. TV companies have been flailing around for compelling interactive TV shows, yet the obvious success story is online gaming. Seems to me online games certainly qualify as interactive television. The "tuning" process and consoles are a bit different from TV sets, but in general games are broadcast content produced by studios for distribution.
Possibly the next Ted Turner will be someone who starts a "game" channel. Maybe the prototype is what we find in hotels and on intercontinental flights today.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
The original poster's "without having to cough up $$$ for the expensive channels" comment doesn't make it sound like he's talking about timeshifting programming that he paid for...
It's debatable whether a few people downloading episodes of their favorite TV programs can significantly impact the entertainment industry. If it does so in a negative way, so what? The overall market is driven by what consumers want. If people don't think television shows are good enough to pay for or to wade through a bunch of ads then there's no real loss to begin with. Maybe more people will go outside for a change if the current industry folds. Or, god willing, we'll start seeing some really innovative stuff from other people...
In any case, it's just irresponsible to call something like this "thieving." We have different laws for theft and copyright infringment for a good reason - they're different actions with different consequences. Our ideas and intuitions about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else don't directly apply to making a copy of something. If you don't think infringing copyright is a good idea, that's fine, but I strongly urge you to not to resort to appeals to emotion by calling it "thieving." It just makes you look like you have an agenda.
Too many lawyers, doctors and metrosexuals for the demographic.
In TV economics, you are not the customer, you are the product. Corporate advertisers are the customers, and they pay big bucks for your eyeballs.
Makes me feel dirty every time I think about it. I stopped watching shortly after this was pointed out to me.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
That's what in-show product placement is for, and why it will become more widespread.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's against posting this in the main article?
Copyright?
And if anything is, can't slashdot make a deal with NY times?
Of course not, because God forbid Slashdot should make a deal with someone -- that might involve that nasty money stuff, and we all know (chant it with me now) that information wants to be free. (Glassy-eyed sheep mode off, now.)
Ironically enough, roughly half the people who complain incessantly on Slashdot about registration-required sites have registrations on Slashdot. The difference, I quite realize, is that it's optional on Slashdot. But what are you worried about? Think the NYT is going to sell your information? Make up a silly age and name and use a throwaway Hotmail account. Are you in paranoia mode? Please...I know I trust the NYT with my information far more than, say, Slashdot's Michael.
Sorry to say, this shouldn't be that shocking. For the last few years, we have all seen television quality fall through the floor.
Instead of blaming Nielson's ratings, perhaps these TV execs should look at their own programming. I mean, if you look at primetime anymore, you have very few options on the major networks, like NBC, ABC, Fox, WB, etc: Reality TV shows (rehashed versions of the same old crap), News Shows (Rehashed versions of the same news stories with too much sensationalism and not enough real news), Cop/Lawyer dramas (How many different spinoffs of Law and Order CAN one network put on the air in one week?), and senseless "hip, urban comedy" (Dave Chappel show, Hugleys, etc etc, that all seem desperate to try to be Fresh Prince of Bel Aire, and others that came before, with nothing really new, exciting, or even original in their scripts, acting, or casting.
I mean, look at the Comedy trends these days. [White suburbanites/black innercity/hispanic] person and group of [multiracial or uniracial] friends discuss [the days events, sex, money, school, other pressing topic] in humorous [vignettes, soliloquy, anecdotes] while surviving in [unreal urban/suburban/barrio] setting and much hilarity ensues.
Same with the tv crime drama... I mean, how many of those are there? Law and Order, law and order CI, law and order SVU, CSI, CSI Miami, NYPD Blue, etc etc... I mean, the ONLY original cop drama I have seen in years (since Miami Vice, actually, and like it or not, it WAS original and set the bar for cop shows to come) was The Shield. In that show, you never quite knew if the star was a good cop or a bad cop...
All channels have reality shows now that are all the same thing [mixed group of people] go to [exotic but clautrophobic area], are forced to [compete with other groups or each other or work as team], and are aired solely for [fights, arguements, drunken moments, crying, etc].
Fox has little right to complain at all. Fox used to be the one with the original programming. And for a while they got back to it with 24, but for the most part, Fox shows the same crap as everyone else. WB is the same. Seems that every time WB gets a good show, Buffy, Angel, etc, they cancel it, and that show is bought up by UPN who keeps it going. Fox and WB adn UPN all have the same comedies (all pretty much black urban comedies, or repeats of Friends), and their sportscasting sucks.
Just like the Music Industry, only the TV networks dont have Napster and Kazaa to blame for declining vierwership.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Unchanged for 50 years, it's incredibly syncronous. Your content is time-slotted, and you have to make plans to watch TV. Tivo and Reply fix that, which i s why I still watch at least 10 hours a week. If it weren;t for that, I'd have given up long ago.
With a PVR, TV is becomes a high-bandwidth syncronous bit stream. On my PVR it becomes richer, I can fast forward, pause, slow, and rewind. While that is going on, I'm on the computer assililating on-dempand content. Content like the famous nipple shot.
Which brings the FCC in. They keep TV uninteresting. They signifigantly devalue it. I have to go to the web for all the juicy stuff.
Now I've often wondered about a Hybrid channel. Most have an online presence, but something that is really on-line, with a content delivery channel on TV. Say like TRL on MTV being TRL via internet. Hell make all of MTV TRL and have software order the videos on a ranking. Get people out of TV, and get your audiance controlling it. Then let thier PVRs pick it up... TV will cease to be the medium it has been, in instead it'll be a one-way high broacast bandwidth stream. Hell, "download" a linux ditribution at 51 megabytes/sec by capturing it to your PVR (~500x400, 256colors) then decode the frames. (And that does not include the 2 22.1kHz stereo channels)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Any time I turn on the TV, I love to see the brilliant women triumphing over idiotic men who couldn't possibly understand the nuances of daily life half as well as a woman. Those stupid husbands. All they do is burn food on the grill and screw up the DirectTV satellite. Of course, I feel like I need to watch more of this sort of thing to figure out how women and kids got so smart.
And thank GOD for gay men who are perceptive enough to tell us what to wear. Men's fashion has been in such a rut before these shows came along, Since Mr. Rodgers died, I didn't know WHAT sweater vest was in. Now, thanks to the "fab five," a hapless modern bozo like me can wear clothes that will look hopelessly outdated next year, just like the smart, professional women do.
But for the really hetero alpha males, we have shows about "Beer" and "Women with Tits." These cater to my testosterone tendencies without insulting my intelligence or sense of chivalry at all. It's enough of an outlet for me that I don't feel like I have to run through Circuit City anymore with drool trailing behind me, even though my wife will let me do that on occasion.
I hope they make more shows with the twenty-something male in mind. I'd like to see more obnoxious behaviour, especially related to beer and sports, which pretty much are the only things to occupy my consciousness, being a man and all. And plenty of sex, but please, only sex with strippers and ditzy sluts with huge boobs. Real women are intimidating to me.
Keep it up, guys! You'll never lose me as a viewer.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
...if you like your women to be interactive.
And we wonder why the country's average personal debt load is so frighteningly high. They are pushing a culture of borrowing and short term vision for immediate gratification.
Considering the economy and spending habits of politicians, I guess they really do represent their public.
Scads of credit counseling/consolidation commercials. Lots of ads pitching trade school or diploma programs. Apparently, the demographic that is home during the weekdays, watching FOX is poor, uneducated, conservative, voyueristic, and looking to get rich quick.
Sounds like half of the SPAM in today's email (the other half is for medication and 'enhancements'). And I'm at work.
Once you're sitting in your car it's too late - unless you are going to be getting info on alternate routes, which the radio isn't going to be giving you anyway.
I can check the traffic before I leave for work and before I come home to see if I need to take an alternate route. That's about all I need.
I don't see anything much on there that is uplifting or even entertaining. As a 45 year old male, I see a lot more on TV that is either distasteful, insulting or annoying. IMHO it is good thing that young men are getting away from corporate controlled media.
Yep - I agree completely. Really, the current situation for television is a few conglomerates with the money, deciding what programs should be created, taped, and aired. All in all, they've done a pretty good job (since, after all, that's how they got the money in the first place).
The thing is, that can easily change - and it will, if enough people decide TV isn't a worthwhile medium anymore.
I think today's television suffers from a lack of creativity, primarily. The shows in the sci-fi genre are the most common exceptions to the rule, and that's why so many of them develop rabid, cult followings. But these only appeal to a small segment of society (hard to imagine as it is being a Slashdot reader, most people aren't into "geek" or "high tech" things). The only really good, original idea they've had in the last 5 years or so, other than sci-fi related shows, was the concept of "reality TV". They've milked that for all it's worth - and it's pretty well burnt out.
(I think a good indicator of a dying TV concept is the introduction of as many sexual themes as possible. This is always a sign they're desperate for more viewers. Therefore, you have new reality TV shows springing up that are all centered around relationships, cheating, and sex.)
In some ways, I think the future of TV might be "low budget". Some of the more interesting (or at least humorous) programming I've seen on cable and satellite has been low-budget amateur productions shown on regional access channels.
The big-name TV stars are mainly concentrating on using their jobs as launch-pads to a movie career, where it seems like the better quality scripts and ideas go anyway.
The really fun stuff to watch may turn out to be produced by your neighbor down the street who loves doing interviews and making documentaries with his camcorder, as opposed to the latest sitcom cranked out by stars demanding 17 million per episode.
I don't see anything there about Physical property. Seems to me intelectual property can be considered theft.
From what I've gathered, the phrase "Intelectual Property" isn't acurate. It's used by copyright/patent/trademark owners to make it sound like they own property. Legally, information is treated differently than property. though.. IANAL.
-metric
By your reasoning, enjoying anything of value without compensation is illegal. In that case, any form of giving without expecting a return is illegal too. That'd be sick.
.., .., .., .., auctioned for .., .., and .., resp." would be ideal. Couple this with a good search engine to allow public and artist to find each other and I think music, games, film, and other products of pure information could thrive without copyrights.
This is exactly what the RIAA wants you to believe. Receiving value without compensating is theft. That is simply not true. Outside the zero-sum world (esp.. the realm of information and other intangibles) you'll find lots of information wheter this doesn't hold.
If I don't respect a lawful monopoly on distribution, then I'm violating the law. I'm not taking any property. I'm not taking his monopoly. I'm not taking anything physical. I'm only lowering the probability of me purchasing a copy. If that's bad, then informing myself must be also bad because it lowers the probability of me purchasing crap products.
However you turn things around, you keep coming back to an artificial construct that is (was!) designed with a specific purpose in mind: to encourage the production of creative works, at the cost of disallowing free sharing of copies and derived works. The tradeoff might have been worth it, but with the current terms and in its current DMCA/EUCD form, I'm personally convinced that doesn't hold anymore.
IMHO we need to move to a scheme where the interested audience pays once, before the work is published. The audience invests based on reputation and bears the risk. After publishing, the author releases all control.
A system where an artist could put up an auction saying, "I need 750,000 EUR to make this production. Collection of funds ends in three months. If the required amount hasn't been reached, everyone will be payed back minus 5% to cover auction costs and other expenses, guaranteed by bank XYZ. Previous works are
The only thing you'd miss as an artist is the income from surprise hits. You'll only be able to cash in on your next production. But this still seems to be a better tradeoff, that wouldn't put off artists in the same way the current system puts of the audience and produces bland, riskless prefab artists. All IMHO of course.
Cheers,
Emile.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
...they'll either throw it back or run away. I think since it's kinda hard to throw all the crap back at the television networks, most people are simply turning away. I think this will be a major contributing factor in the years to come, as well as internet. There's so much freakin trash on TV these days, that it's a wonder people haven't turned their heads to their computers SOONER. The only networks I even bother changing to anymore are Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, and Food Network (I'm addicted to Iron Chef). Somtimes Bravo too, but that's about it. Most of the stuff on television to day is just TRASH. Hopefully more people will stop taking in all the BS television throws at us and go for some more inspiring content, that the internet provides (ok, goatse is definatly not inspiring, but c'mon, there's some good stuff out there....really!). Seriously though, TV is crap these days. Turn the trash off.
Television is for people who can't stand to be alone with their own thoughts. The pace is designed to remove the burden of identity.