Bland on Bland

The other day I was reading an article in one of the newspapers that was basically an interview with the U.S. actor with the highest TVQ on television. TVQ is another name for star quality. An actor the viewers respond to positively. In this case they respond more positively than any other actor regularly seen on television. It was a big surprise to me, and unless you read the same piece, it will be a big surprise to you too. It’s Pauley Perrette. She plays the tall goth scientific investigator on NCIS. With her crazy clothes, spider web tattoos and huge platform shoes it is hard to believe that the character she plays, let alone the actor could be so popular in a country as right wing and closed minded as the United States.

Ms. Perrette’s popularity, and the popularity of the other stars of the show, especially Mark Harmon and Michael Weatherly, goes a long way to explaining why a show that has seldom had good reviews and is generally ignored by the entertainment media is on most weeks the most watched drama on American television.

A long time ago, a very smart television producer taught me that most viewers watch television in one of two places…either their living room or their bedroom. He went on to explain that nobody invites anyone into their home that they are not very comfortable with. He further pointed out, if you like someone you will have them back to your house more and more often. The lesson is obvious. If you want to produce a successful television show, the stars should be the type of people that the viewers want to spend time with.

A few years ago at the Cannes TV Market, MIP, I sat in on a discussion of how reality TV is produced. Some of the top reality producers explained how they draw in the big audiences. They explained that they send every day’s rushes back to focus groups to test the TVQ of all the contestants. What they found, and the way the show works, is that everyone on the show who is well liked gets to stay. They adapted the TVQ theory a little too because everyone the audience hates also gets to play longer. Their formula gets rid of the players who are bland, who do not create any response at all. How they get rid of the players they don’t want is grist for another story. Suffice it to say that they manipulate the cast to try to end up with a man versus a woman as the final pair, and if all goes right, one contestant the viewers will cheer for and another the audience will cheer against. Perhaps this explains the popularity of House.

So what does all of this have to do with television news in Canada?

It seems to me that the people who produce news and current affairs in this country have yet to learn the lessons that drama, reality and comedy programmers have known for years.

It’s not that News producers don’t know. Ask anyone who works at any of the major newscasts and they will tell you who their stars are. In most cases they will explain that their stars are great journalists, but if you let the conversation flow you will find they will begin to talk about the great performers. The people with personality that shine through the TV screen and brighten up a room. At CBC Adrienne Arsenault stands out today. She is immediately recognizable. Sure, she does a great job, but she also has high TVQ. In the past Mike Duffy was a star even greater than his ability as a journalist or his girth. At CTV I see more and more of Omar Sachedina. Yes he’s a talented reporter, but he is also a performer who is welcome in the homes of Canadian news viewers. Craig Oliver was one of the great reporting stars that CTV had. Everyone knew Craig in the same way they knew Mike Duffy. CTV has also had Harvey Kirck and Lloyd Robertson. You couldn’t walk on any street in Canada and not see immediately how people responded positively to them.

Look closely at CBC and CTV news however, and you will not be blown away by the personalities you see night after night. For the most part you would be hard pressed to recognize them on the street if a camera was not pointed at them. I sometimes wonder how some of the very bland people became on air television reporters. Was it by default? They were, like Mount Everest, there. What’s the process that allows such nondescript people to get these few and important jobs telling the stories of Canada to Canadians?

One incident speaks of the failure of Canadian news broadcasters more than any other to me. When Pamela Wallin was whizzed from CBC News one of the greatest opportunities to create audience for The National opened up. The person with the highest TVQ at CBC news at the time was Wendy Mesley. If ever there was a true news star at CBC it was Wendy. Add to that, she is a terrific journalist and a good interviewer. She was a natural to replace Pamela. Oh, and as if all that is not enough, she had just divorced Peter Mansbridge. The pairing would have earned audiences off the charts for news in Canada in my estimation. People would tune in just to see how the former couple got along on air. The great journalism would have been a bonus. But it was not to be. I have asked CBC people why it never happened and have heard all kinds of answers, none of which have made any sense. I do know, however, if it was NBC, ABC, or CBS Peter and Wendy would have certainly been co-hosting and perhaps, the ratings they created together might have saved The National from the changes that led to the predicament that CBC News faces today.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, Adrienne Arsenault, CBC News, CBS, Craig Oliver, CTV News, Harvey Kirck, Lloyd Robertson, Mike Duffy, NBC, NCIS, Omar Sachedina, Pamela Wallin, Pauley Perrette, Peter Mansbridge, The National, Wendy Mesley

Disaster! What Disaster?

For the first time I can remember, I have read more comment about the lack of coverage of an event than I have had the opportunity to read and see coverage of the event itself. While not completely ignoring the devastating floods and human disaster in Pakistan, the western press has certainly treated the massive loss of life and the humanitarian crisis with little more than a figurative yawn. Where are the teams of CNN journalists? Where’s the CBC and CTV? Where is ABC, NBC and CBS? I hear Al Jazeera English is all over the story though.

As almost all the commentators have done, it is reasonable to compare the coverage of the Haiti earthquake and the events of the past two weeks in Pakistan. In Haiti it took but a few hours before news teams were on their way. They took every imaginable route to the disaster defying the difficulties of an airport that was out of commission and a port that was in ruins. Most came in overland from the Dominican Republic but many chartered their own boats and even helicopters to land in Haiti.
Beyond the news media, rock stars organized fund raisers, everyone, it seemed, had a plan to come to the aid of the Haitian people. The world mobilized and the money poured in.

Now let’s look at Pakistan. Yes, a flood is not as dramatic as an earthquake. Sure the numbers of immediate deaths are small in comparison to Haiti, 300,000 to 14,000. But in Pakistan there are more than triple the number of homeless and if help is not forthcoming disease and starvation may drive the numbers of dead up to Haitian levels or worse.

I’ve heard of no concerts for Pakistan. Anderson Cooper hasn’t moved to Pakistan for a few months to cover the events and rail against the lack of aid. After a few days the news from Pakistan made few front pages of daily newspapers.

The commentators are asking why the lack of interest by the media and in turn, the public. They all give their reasons. Most prominent among the reasons I’ve read has been the idea that there is a disaster fatigue. In other words, we are tired of disasters. Haiti took it out of us. It’s hard to get up for a new human crisis just a few months after we mobilized for Haiti.

Another reason I have read a lot about is that it is summer. TV viewership is down, many correspondents are on vacation, staffs are stretched and frankly why waste the big bucks it would take to do a proper job on the relatively small vacation time audiences.

While I believe there is some truth in both of the above excuses, I do not believe either one comes close to the two real reasons the world press are avoiding Pakistan.

The first “real” reason is that in these days of austerity and budget cutting no network has the money to go all out on Haiti and Pakistan. Haiti is already done and so is the budget. Maybe if the flooding had taken place after Labor Day, the traditional start of the new TV season for newscasters, the news bosses might have been more willing to part with a few bucks and few more resources to cover the flood and its aftermath. Let’s face it, at this time of year you can hardly get Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson to host their own newscasts, let alone fly off to Islamabad and beyond.

In my opinion the networks and newspapers are breaking one of the golden rules of news coverage. When I got my first executive producing job at CTV, my brilliant boss, Don Cameron, gave me this advice: never spend money you don’t have to spend and NEVER let money get in the way of covering an important news story. I wish Don were alive today because I know if he was, CTV at least, would be all over the Pakistan flood.

Now to the second “real” and least discussed reason for the lack of coverage of Pakistan. Nobody wants to come out and say it because it sounds more than a little racist or anti-Muslim, but come on folks, don’t you think that news people in the west look at Pakistan and see a whole lot of people, many even in the army and the government, who are all too willing to help Bin Laden and the Taliban to kill our boys and girls in Afghanistan. Don’t you think news people see many of the people of Pakistan as fundamentalist Muslims who want to destroy Christianity and kill Jews. Don’t we see Pakistani’s as a source of terrorism in the west and worse a possible source of nuclear terrorism. I haven’t even mentioned the treatment of women or the attacks in Mumbai. Add to all these things the very real fear that if they go, journalists I mean, to western Pakistan there is always the possibility of being kidnapped and beheaded. All of this has to add up to a very natural reluctance to cover any events in Pakistan, let alone the floods.

Logically I can sit here at my very safe desk in Toronto and say yes, all of that may be true, but the millions of poor Pakistani’s who are suffering are human beings, they are victims of a terrible disaster and they are being further victimized by prejudice and the possible fact their religious and political leaders may have committed what we in the west consider crimes against us. It’s not fair, but unless we confront the truths behind our actions we will not be able to do it better next time.

I believe it is really important in the aftermath of the Pakistani floods to take a good look at how the western media reacted to the floods, the homelessness, the starvation and the disease. We must ask ourselves why we gave these event short shrift and we must examine the kind of response that we feel was needed. In the end, journalists may say it was too expensive or too dangerous. They may even say it wasn’t worth the money to report on people that westerners show little compassion for. I would argue the other side. But let’s have the argument so that we know how to react next time instead of letting the story pass by default.

I highly recommend that you all go to the J-Source website, www.j-source.ca and read a most thoughtful piece by Claude Adams. Claude is an excellent journalist who has covered these sorts of events all over the world. He speaks from experience and he makes more sense than any other commentary I have read on the subject.

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, ABC, Al Jazeera, Anderson Cooper, CBC, CBS, Claude Adams, CNN, CTV, NBC

Badly Served in Canada

My wife is constantly amazed that I read every page of the newspapers that are delivered to my door every morning…seven days a week. Of course I watch a lot of news on television too. That makes me a bona fide news junkie. According to the statistics I read in one of the newspapers, it can be difficult to differentiate when you are plowing through so much news, I am not an uncommon Canadian. It seems we are a country of news junkies in comparison to our American neighbors. The market for quality news coverage is still very strong here. So why are Canadian news outlets from print, TV and radio following the U.S. down the road to coverage of non-events, non-stories and celebrity garbage…I mean gossip?

Each day it feels like it takes me less and less time to read the papers. The Sunday Toronto Star is an empty shell that can be perused cover to cover in about ten minutes. I barely know who Lindsay Lohan is and what makes her famous yet I am bombarded with her brush with the law and her impending jail term. I’m sure Lohan’s incarceration will have little effect on the world economy other than to sell a few more newspapers.

When I was at CBC my bosses conducted a poll of news viewers; which station they watched, why they chose to watch a specific newscast, their age, education background and yearly earnings. The results were obvious. The CBC’s viewers were older, richer and better educated than CTV, Global and CITY viewers. CITY-TV viewers were the youngest, poorest and least educated. But put that way, it is highly misleading. The difference in average age from CBC to CITY-TV was about 5 years, 44 for CITY and just under 49 for CBC. CBC had the most university grads but most CBC viewers barely finished high school.

I remember thinking at the time that CITY’s rock and roll news was a great thing for CBC. Younger folks got hooked on the news watching Gord Martineau and his gang. They developed the news viewing habit in simple bite sized, picture stories. The way I saw it, when they matured and wanted more, they would graduate to CBC News. CITY was news with training wheels. CBC was the 18 speed racing bike.

The world of television and TV news is far more complicated today. It is as much about style as substance. There are far more choices. The internet and all-news channels provide way more options. A friend told me that watching network news in Canada today is like watching yesterday’s newscast. He has seen all the stories during the day on the net and has no time for the déjà vu provided by the TV newscasts.

Given all of the above I have to ask what CBC, CTV and Global are doing. Instead of creating a new kind of in depth version of a newscast with fewer stories and more context, they are still competing with CBC NN, CTV News Network and the internet. They are still trying to cover all the stories without getting down to what is important and giving those stories more time and effort. In Canada this is doubly stupid because the networks own the services they are competing with.

When Newsworld was first created I believed it would be the best thing that happened to national newscasts. It would free them from having to be everywhere covering stories large and small from across the country and around the world. I expected the news bosses to choose six or seven important stories and give them in depth coverage. Why not? The small stories about the snow storm in Calgary and the 20 car pile-up outside Chatham were now taken care of. There would be more time to look at the cost of the G-20 and whether we really need a census any more. (By the way, we still have not seen a single investigative report on how our government spent $1.2 billion on a summit that cost everyone else a tenth of that sum or less.) Alas, this has not happened. Today’s newscasts in Canada look very similar, in coverage, to what they looked like before Newsworld and CTV News Network. If anything, CBC especially, has taken many steps backward. They have done away, for the most part, with their excellent long form journalism and replaced it on most nights with fillers and fluff that should not have a place on a serious national newscast.

Why did I expect change? Because CBS, NBC, and ABC changed when CNN came along. They realized the futility of challenging CNN for speed. They understood that they couldn’t cover in half-an-hour what CNN had 24 hours to report on. Before CNN a typical network newscast in the U.S. packed 12 to 14 stories into their 30 minutes minus ads every night. Since the advent of CNN, the average American network newscast averages 6 to 8 stories and on many nights an investigative feature on an important subject is one of those stories.

In Canada we may be a nation of news junkies but we are not being well served by our national institutions. The CBC, Global and CTV are mired in formats that were out of date in the 90’s. The Globe and Mail seems to be providing less and less serious news coverage and little investigation into important stories, in some cases preferring to be touts for their own (CTV Globe Media) Olympic coverage or even stooping to stories on which dance team was eliminated from a CTV reality(?) show. CBC Radio is the lone exception but rumors abound that Richard Stursberg is coming to make radio news as inane as he has made TV news.

With new hosts coming to CTV and Global and a renewal process at CBC TV that is an abject failure, perhaps the time has come to take a long look at what network news is doing and look to the future rather than the past to bring about the kind of change that a news hungry population craves.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, CBC, CBC NN, CBS, City-TV, CNN, CTV, CTV News Network, Global, Gord Martineau, NBC, Newsworld, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star

The Olympic Muzzle

There’s a new Olympic sized media brouhaha that’s popping up at CTVglobemedia. It appears that CTV and The Globe are so fearful of criticism of their Olympic coverage that they are willing to muzzle their own people.

A few days ago I asked Bruce Dowbiggin, The Globe’s sports media columnist, why his column has disappeared. He did not really answer my question instead changing the subject. This is not the Bruce Dowbiggin I know who is one of the straightest shooting media people in Canada. He tells it like he sees it no matter what the circumstances. Just ask Don Cherry.

Then I saw this blog by William Houston. He is the former sports media columnist for The Globe and Mail and perhaps has an insight that is unavailable to the rest of us. Here’s what Houston had to say:

Where’s the Globe’s media critic?
“Curiously, Bruce Dowbiggin, the sports broadcast columnist for The Globe and Mail, has not written a word of analysis about Vancouver Olympic TV coverage.
Chris Zelkovich, who writes on sports television for The Toronto Star, has been filing daily columns. I’m writing for Yahoo! Canada in addition to filing to this webpage. There seems to be interest in what CTV and NBC are doing.
But Bruce? He’s cobbling together quotes about the Winter Games from the international media. His Feb. 18 collection consisted of seven quotes from sources such as an NBC news release and newspaper stories in the United States and Britain.
Why isn’t Dowbiggin critiquing the coverage of CTV and NBC? I emailed him and asked, but he didn’t respond. So, let’s guess:
Bruce decided to take some time off and just enjoy the Games on TV. Or the Globe didn’t feel it necessary to analyze the CTV telecasts. (Saturday’s edition includes a short feature by sports writer James Christie on Brian Williams and announcer Rod Black.)
Or perhaps it was decided Bruce would be in an untenable conflict of interest by being required to critique the Olympic coverage of a network (CTV) that is owned by the company (CTVglobemedia) that also owns the Globe.
But, that can’t be the reason. After all, he writes about TSN and TSN2, which are owned by CTVglobemedia. Other media writers comment all the time on the work of outlets owned by the company for which they work. Phil Mushnick, the sports broadcasting columnist for The New York Post, comments on Fox Sports. Both Fox and the Post are owned by News Corp. Howard Kurtz writes on media for The Washington Post and regularly critiques his own newspaper. It can’t be a conflict of interest issue, can it? The mystery continues.”

There’s really no mystery is there. CTV is afraid of a little honest commentary. I am led to believe that while Bruce Dowbiggin is collecting quotes, John Doyle was supposed to be critiquing the coverage. Well John is missing in action on that front. Oh, like Bruce he’s in the newspaper every day but I guess he doesn’t think Olympic coverage is worthy of a column or two. Give me a break. It is all too obvious that the muzzles are on and the journalism, on this subject for sure, has been shut down.

The bigger point is that it is a nutty decision. CTV and the Olympic consortium are doing a very good job. The network, along with TSN, Rogers Sportsnet, APTN and the internet have covered the Olympics better than they have ever been covered before, anywhere. Brian Williams is doing his usual masterful job of staying on top of everything and keeping the viewers well informed, I wish CTV used Brian more often and all year round.  On Sportsnet and TSN they are doing a very credible job covering events live. The internet coverage has been excellent providing both live action and add-on information never before available at an Olympic event.

There have been some surprise stars too. James Duthie has proven to be an excellent host whose wit and presence has brightened our screens. Sale and Pelletier are the best figure skating analysts I have ever heard. Their honesty and friendly family bickering have been a breath of fresh air. Jamie Campbell has been a revelation. For several years the far too stoic voice of the Blue Jays, he has come alive at the games. His call of Canada’s first gold medal will be most memorable for years to come.

Importantly, while the Canadian athletes have “blown the podium” the CTV coverage has been as close to flawless as can be expected. These Olympics are a huge enterprise. The technology and the partnerships have made almost total coverage possible. The consortium has put it all together in a way that will spoil us for anything less in the future. Will Canadians ever settle for single channel coverage of high-lights with the odd bit of live action thrown in again? We have seen the future and we like it. No, we demand it. All you have to do is tune in NBC to see the old style coverage. I guarantee you will be back to our Canadian channels very quickly.

The consortium gets a gold medal. CTVglobemedia gets a DNF (did not finish) for their fearfulness.

Filed under: Media Commentary, APTN, Brian Williams, Bruce Dowbiggin, Chris Zelkovich, CTV, James Duthie, Jamie Campbell, John Doyle, NBC, Rogers Sportsnet, Sale and Pelletier, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, TSN

An American Fiasco…it can’t happen here.

The fiasco that’s playing itself out in the United States with Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien and NBC could not happen here in Canada. There was a time when it could but the amassing of television properties by just a few large conglomerates has put an end to anyone being able to force CTV, Global and even CBC to do anything they don’t want to do.

What occurred in the U.S. was a revolt by the NBC affiliated stations against the low ratings Leno was getting at 10 o’clock. This resulted in lower ratings for the local eleven o’clock local news and of course a corresponding loss of advertising revenue for NBC’s local affiliated stations.

The affiliates said enough is enough. We don’t care if NBC is saving money by not running an expensive drama at ten. Your gain is our loss.

In the U.S. the affiliates wield all the power. The networks need them to air national programs so that they can sell national advertising. That’s where they make their money. If the affiliate in Cincinnati or St. Louis doesn’t broadcast the NBC show it means a lower national audience. A smaller audience means less money for advertising for the network. It is this system that makes local television strong. This system is why local news is important in America and why the average local newscast in a small city like Buffalo spends more money on news than the huge CTV station in Toronto. The entire U.S. network system is based on a grid of local stations that cover the entire country, local stations that are only there to serve local markets.

For all the bull coming from CTV and Global about saving local TV the fact is the Canadian networks co-opted the local owners and bought them out years ago. CTV and Global own almost all the stations that broadcast their signal. If CTV or Global is saving money on a show that is not delivering audience it is their call as to whether the money savings are worth the audience loss. There are no affiliates left to complain. There is no local left. In Canada it is always about the network. In Canada it is always about the bottom line of CTV and Global.

What’s most interesting about the Leno problem at NBC is that the show was working well-enough for the network. Sure they were getting about one-half to one-third of the audience that ABC, CBS and Fox were getting in the ten o’clock time slot, but they were only paying 20 percent of what the other networks were doling out for shows like CSI Miami and The Good Wife. Do the math. They were actually making more money on the cheap Leno show with five million viewers than they would have made with a cop show or hospital drama with 10 to 15 million viewers. NBC in fact did not want to move or cancel Leno it was working for them.

In the U.S. it was the power of local TV, real local TV, that made the difference.

When I started in television at CTV in the seventies the entire network was controlled by the affiliates. The Peters family in B.C. created the highest rated newscast in Canada. B.C. TV was a powerhouse. In Toronto and Saskatoon the Bassets ran the local CTV stations and built the strongest local newscasts in Toronto and Northern Saskatchewan by far. In Ottawa and Halifax the Waters family built massively successful local newscasts that it seemed everyone watched. All these stations did one thing really well: they were local. They covered their communities better than anyone and they made money doing it. They also held the real power at CTV. The network had to make them happy or they would be called on the carpet to explain.

Even at CBC the affiliates had a lot of power. Years ago, in the mid-eighties, a study was done by CBC to find the best time slot for The National. CBC news was getting beaten badly going head-to-head against CTV National News. It was embarrassing to the bosses at CBC so they plotted to move the show. The study, it cost thousands of dollars by the way, came back saying 7 p.m. was the best time slot for The National. It would follow local news and would come on after NBC, CBS and ABC News. No problem right? Wrong. At the time the CBC had 14 affiliates in places like Sudbury, Victoria and Barrie and 7 p.m. is where they made their money. This was a local timeslot. Here the affiliates ran game shows and in some rare instances they ran local current affairs (Does anyone remember local current affairs?). It was local TV making local choices. The money they made in that hour helped pay for local news. The result: The National moved to 10 o’clock which was considered network time. I guess the relative success of that move and the creation of The Journal silenced the local critics for a few years. In the end though, most of CBC’s affiliates left them for CTV or Global as CBC News numbers started to retreat.

So, when you hear about CTV and Global trying to save local TV think about Conan and Jay. Think about the power local TV has in the U.S. Think about the fact that local TV does not really exist anymore in Canada. If Leno was a Canadian show there would be no talk of moving the program. Sure local news numbers would be down but the networks would be making more money and isn’t that all that matters to CTV and Global?

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, CBS. Fox, Conan O'Brien, CTV, Global, Jay Leno, NBC, The National

No News is Bad News

At the end of the year it’s traditional to look back at what occurred during the past twelve months and pick out the highs and lows. Most years there are a few examples of each. 2009, however, has proved to be one of the most dismal years for news and current affairs in Canada ever. I can’t think of a worse period in my lifetime.

Everybody has already noted the disaster that is the new National at CBC: thin gruel masquerading as news, the worst reporting staff in CBC Television history, the inability to fill sixty minutes with relevant stories, and this doesn’t even refer to the ludicrous and totally unmotivated standing around to read the news and do interviews. The good news is that the audience numbers are way down. Perhaps this will induce the CBC bosses to see the error of their ways. I’m not holding my breath.

The CBC’s last great journalism show has also been diminished. The Fifth Estate has been moved to the dead zone of Friday night where it is almost impossible to garner decent ratings. The reason for the move: a better night to run Being Erica. Now I’m all for Canadian drama but why do the schedulers at CBC need to promote Canadian drama at the expense of their flagship current affairs program?

CBC fell further under the leadership and thrall of the evil emperor, Richard (Darth) Stursberg. He and his hand-picked minions of “yes” people seem to be doing the best they can to wreck CBC News and Current Affairs. Under his rule we have seen the degradation of national news, the moving of The Fifth and local news to dead zones, the virtual disappearance of the once popular program Market Place (it finally reappears after New Years), the now almost non-existent documentary, and I haven’t mentioned the terminally unwatchable CBCNN. There are those within the network, the cynics I guess, who believe Stursberg wants to see news and current affairs fail miserably so he can take the money and spend it on new drama, comedy and reality. If that’s the case the man has not looked at the history of television. News has been, and still is, one of the best ways to build an audience for your entire schedule. Hello, Dick, is the CBC still the CBC without Little Mosque on the Prairie and Being Erica? Is the CBC still the CBC without The National and The Fifth Estate?

CBC Radio has fared a little better but those in charge there believe it is purely a case of benign neglect and they fear that neglect is coming to an end. One producer of a flagship current affairs program on radio told me that Stursberg and company are beginning to look at radio. Scary. Ratings are good, but they can better if the shows are “dumbed –down” like over in CBC-TV land, at least that’s the idea the radio producers are getting from their bosses.

Over at CTV and Global the news is not much better. The bulwarks of “Capitalist Broadcasting” are coming to the government cap-in-hand begging for money in the form of cable and satellite fees. Their hook: they want to save local TV. Local TV, isn’t that the part of their empire they have abused and chopped going way back before they had a small financial dilemma? To prove how much they care about local TV they have been closing local stations even before they find out whether the CRTC will grant them their millions in unearned cash and they have steadfastly refused to guarantee that the dollars they squeeze out of cable and satellite subscribers will go to local TV. Save our shareholders! I guess that doesn’t sound so good in a television ad.

In the meantime CTV still runs W5 but buries it by running it against hockey on Saturday evening and if and when they invest in a documentary, it always airs in the W5 timeslot.

Over at Global, they bury their current affairs in their schedule too. Hands up anyone who has seen or heard about a Global documentary. I saw one on the rise of religion in Canada but that was only because a friend produced it and was kind enough to let me know when it was going to air.

CTV and Global news do a much better job of appealing to Canadians than CBC News does. For proof of this I only have to point out that both get over a million viewers regularly while CBC has trouble reaching half-a-million. Both are better produced and slicker than CBC’s effort but there is little room for celebration. Neither makes any attempt at depth or context. In a world where ABC, NBC and CBS have long understood that fewer stories told more completely is the best way to compete with all-news TV; CTV and Global are still doing newscasts the same way they were done pre-CNN and the internet. Here too CBC News’ failure may be a key. CTV and Global have always done a better job when they were pushed by excellent coverage at CBC. Now that the “Corpse” news has sunk below CTV and Global’s level there is no need for the privates to try harder.

In the U.S. we have witnessed the disintegration of the CNN audience with the odious Fox News being the main recipient of new viewers. Serious stories go unreported south of the border while the balloon boys, disappearing politicians and “birthers” dominate the airwaves. Sensationalism is winning and stories like Copenhagen are losing. Worse still the all news folks are challenging each other to see who can distort or get the facts more wrong. Any coverage of the health care debate by Fox or MSNBC is sure to make a Canadian’s eyes roll.

The good news? Well 60 Minutes somehow continues to tell excellent stories and surprise, surprise, gets a big audience too. The Fifth Estate still has the ability to do the best research and find the best stories. PBS’ new Newshour format is even better than it was before. CTV’s reporters, as a group, are as strong as any reporting team I can remember; perhaps that’s because they took their best and added some of CBC’s best to create a kind of dream team of news reporting. The Agenda with Steve Paikin gets better every year and deals with the kind of topics that only PBS and TVO tackle; oh, and surprise, surprise, they get pretty good numbers doing it in the middle of prime time against the toughest competition. CBC Radio has so far stayed the mostly fine course (we can only pray that lasts). And finally, Lou Dobbs is gone from CNN, this alone could be reason to celebrate the New Year.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 60 Minutes, ABC, Being Erica, CBCNN, CBS, CNN, CTV, Fox News, Global, Lou Dobbs, Market Place, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, Richard Stursberg, The Agenda, The Fifth Estate, The National, TVO, W5

Hijacking the Torch

Who knew when it started that the Olympic Torch Relay would not only become an interminable tortoise run across Canada but worse that it would be hijacked in the most crass way by CTV, TSN and The Globe and Mail.

How do you make this patriotic run up to one of the most exciting sporting events in the world boring? Just ask the broadcasters and newspapers who own the rights to air the winter Olympics from Vancouver and Whistler.

When the torch relay began it became clear that CTV was going to cover it and run it like it is an in house event, a reality show for the rights holders. I don’t know how the torch bearers are chosen but I do know the best way to guarantee that you will get the opportunity to squeeze into one of those nifty white suits and strut down an avenue close to home making like Lady Liberty. The best way: become an on air personality for CTV or one of its affiliates. Whether it’s Seamus O’Regan in St. John’s or Ben Mulroney in Sept Iles it became very obvious very quickly that this wasn’t Canada’s torch relay it was the CTV/Globemedia torch relay.

Night after night we are treated to pictures and clips not from ordinary Canadians, not from former Olympians, not even from youngsters who dreamed of toting the flame through their home town. No, we get words and pictures of CTV celebs like Sandy Rinaldo doing their bit to advertise the fact that CTV is the Olympic Broadcaster.

Leaving aside the fairness issue, that is whether all Canadians should have had an equal opportunity to carry the Olympic Torch, since when is it okay for reporters and hosts to make themselves the story? How do you cover an event if you are the star of that event? We all know the answer, you can’t and shouldn’t but that hasn’t slowed CTV one bit. Night after night their employees get first billing and the star treatment as they heft their torches through the streets and highways of the country.

Worse than unfair, it is stupid television production. CTV, TSN and The Globe are missing great opportunities almost daily to focus on the most heartwarming, interesting, crazy and uplifting stories that I am sure are there among the just plain folks who are doing the bulk of the relay. These great stories should be the centerpiece of the coverage. The stories of real Canadians from coast-to-coast-to- coast should be hi-lighted to show how an event like the Olympics can unite a country and bring out the best patriotic passion that Canadians are so shy about.

TSN could be focusing on the former Olympians and retired athletes making one last contribution to the Canadian Olympic effort.

Instead CTV and TSN have turned what should have been a democratic event into an in house broadcast. Pity.

And I’m afraid that’s not the worst of it. In the past few days, just north of Toronto and near Brantford, Ontario we have seen the complete abdication of CTV, TSN and Globe journalism. Native people, unhappy with the symbolism and their plight in this country have used the torch relay to make their point. Protests and roadblocks have been set up forcing the relay off its planned route twice. Interestingly CTV and the paper that calls itself “Canada’s National Newspaper” have chosen to all but ignore the protests. Why? When CTV paid millions for the rights did they give up on their job as journalists in order to become Olympic cheerleaders? If so, I would advise watching the Olympics on NBC.

A few years ago I produced a documentary on Sale and Pelletier, those wonderful figure skaters who were cheated out of a gold medal. It took forever to get CTV approval to tell the story because they were afraid it would reflect badly on the Olympic movement. We had to promise them that the IOC (the International Olympic Committee) would come out smelling like a rose because they forced the skating body to rectify the problem. The doc was a huge success garnering 1.5 million viewers. CTV came back to us and asked us to do another Olympic themed doc. We suggested a look at the anti-doping lab in Montreal. Montreal is the anti-doping centre for the Olympics and Dick Pound, a Canadian, is the anti-doping king. This is something Canadians should be proud of and informed about. The work done in Montreal is pivotal and we were actually granted full access to the labs and their work. No way, said CTV. Doping is not the kind of positive story we are looking for. Enough said about where CTV, TSN and the Globe are coming from.

Today’s Globe mentioned the fact that the relay had to change its route to Brantford but they did not bother to do any stories about what the native peoples on the Six Nations Reserve were protesting. They didn’t even cover the protest. When the protest north of Toronto took place a few days ago CTV National News ignored not only the protest but the issues around the protest. I daresay CTV and TSN will continue to ignore the Six Nations story. In fact it looks to me like CTV, TSN and The Globe will continue to ignore any negative stories that pop up between now and the time that CTV, TSN and The Globe lose the media rights to the Olympic Games four years from now.

Let’s hope CBC gets the Olympic rights back sooner rather than later because history has shown us that while CBC Sports may have glossed over some controversial issues, they did not abandon their journalism. And CBC News never shied away from the negative stories. Brian Williams is a fine reporter and sports journalist. Too bad it looks like CTV and TSN will never allow him to do what he does best.

Filed under: Media Commentary, Ben Mulroney, Brian Williams, CBC, CTV, Dick Pound, NBC, Olympic Torch Relay, Sandy Rinaldo, Seamus O'Regan, The Globe and Mail, TSN

Bye Bye Network TV

With all the ‘bull’ being raised at the CRTC hearings in the National Capital District it amazes me that nobody has glommed onto the obvious. The great television networks of North America are a dying breed. CTV and Global are wasting their time and ours by arguing for a future that doesn’t exist. In fact if you read between the lines, subscription fees are another way of saying “we want to be a cable service.”

The greedy part of what they are doing is that they are attempting to keep all the perks of over-the-airways channels: must-carriage, simulcasting, the best spots on the dial, while charging the same sort of fees that TSN, Slice or W charge.

The real truth is that they cannot win these new fees without offering something huge in return. The most obvious is to promise greater amounts of Canadian content. It will be the CRTC’s job to make sure that the content they offer is in the form of drama, comedy and documentary production. The nets would far prefer to offer cheaper reality TV. The nets will offer the Canadian programs in dead zones like opposite hockey, Friday nights, outside prime time. It will be the CRTC’s job to get guarantees for a percentage of prime time and while I’m at it, an assurance that Canadian shows will have the same sort of promotion budgets that the big U.S. shows get.

I’m not holding my breath. The CRTC is toothless in dealing with the networks. Global seldom if ever lives up to its license guarantees. CTV uses every trick to shortchange Canadian production. The CRTC has always been silent on any transgression.

The bread and butter of CTV and Global is the big U.S. blockbuster series. That’s where they get their audience. That’s where they make their money. The U.S. shows are way cheaper to buy than spending $2 million and more per episode on Canadian drama. And here’s the rub: the U.S. networks are in as bad shape as CTV and Global.

Many American media experts point to two events in the past year as forewarning the end of the network era. First came Jay Leno’s new prime time talk show. It basically said NBC doesn’t have the money to produce three hours of prime time every weekday. More recently Oprah’s announcement that she is walking away from her hugely successful show that runs on network television. Everyone knows she will reappear on her own cable station that’s about to be picked up by cable and satellite companies in the U.S.

The writing is on the wall. NBC is trying to sell itself to Comcast, the biggest U.S. cable operator. What’s fascinating about this sale is that it’s General Electric’s cable channels: Bravo, USA, MSNBC, SyFy and CNBC, not NBC are what Comcast wants, not the fourth place broadcast network.

The experts agree that broadcast TV that relies on advertising may be a broken model. In a recent article in the U.S. Tim Arango and Bill Carter looked at the future of broadcast networks:

“The business model of the big three networks — which became four when Fox began prime-time programming in 1987 — has for decades relied on a simple formula: spend millions on original programming that will attract advertiser dollars and later live on as lucrative reruns in syndication.
But ratings are going down. In the 1952-53 television season, more than 30 percent of American households that owned televisions tuned in to NBC during prime time, according to Nielsen. In the 2007-8 season, that figure was just 5.2 percent.
The mass audience — the bread and butter of broadcast networks — has splintered into niches as viewers flock to alternative entertainment choices on the Internet, to video games and to cable channels dedicated to individual tastes, like Ms. Winfrey’s forthcoming OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network.
And yet, programming remains expensive — a network drama costs about $3 million for one hour — and advertisers are becoming reluctant to pay ever-rising premiums for prime-time shows. All the networks have tried to adjust, putting on more reality programming, for example, that is cheaper to produce.
NBC made perhaps the biggest bet of all — moving Jay Leno to prime time each night at 10, saving the millions it would have cost to develop a scripted show in that time spot. The Leno move has been the subject of intense scrutiny by the media, because Mr. Leno’s ratings have lately fallen on several nights well below even the modest guarantees NBC made to advertisers.
While networks have found it difficult to charge ever-higher advertising rates in the face of declining ratings, big cable channels — like USA, TNT and TBS — have flourished with the millions of dollars in subscription fees from cable operators that they receive, on top of advertising.
“The cable players have a robust affiliate fee stream that allows them to better finance original programming,” said Anthony DiClemente, a media analyst at Barclays Capital. “The main structural issue right now with broadcast is that the vast majority of revenues are from advertising.”
Profit margins for cable networks are also much better than broadcast networks’. Derek Baine, a senior analyst at SNL Kagan, said big cable networks earned profit margins of 40 to 60 percent, while a good year for a broadcast network is a 10 percent profit margin.
Illustrative of this is a comparison of NBC to ESPN, one of the most popular cable channels. Last year, revenue for the two networks was roughly equal. NBC, according to SNL Kagan, generated about $5.6 billion in advertising dollars; ESPN generated a total of about $6 billion in revenue — $1.6 billion from advertising and $4.4 billion in subscriber fees. But ESPN was vastly more profitable. Its cash flow was about $1.4 billion, while NBC’s was $304 million.”

What does this mean for CTV and Global? It means the shows they have depended on to survive, the ones they want even better access to, may soon cease to exist. How long can a dying industry continue to produce $3 million episodes that get smaller and smaller audiences? Not long. Global without House and NCIS is dead. CTV without the CSI’s and Grey’s Anatomy is likewise in big trouble.

So, instead of looking at ways to save the dinosaurs shouldn’t the huge brains at CTV, Global and the CRTC be planning for a very different future? A future where all TV is either by subscription or pay-per-view. A future that includes on-demand TV and television via the internet and cell phone. If these guys are so smart why can’t they see what’s happening before their eyes right now? The stupidity of the Aspers, Fecans and von Finckensteins is frightening to me. How about you?

Filed under: Media Commentary, Political Commentary, Bravo, CRTC, CTV, ESPN, Global, Ivan Fecan, Konrad von Finckenstein, Leonard Asper, MSNBC, NBC, Oprah Winfrey, TBS, TNT, USA Network

The Need for Speed

A little while ago, it was a few days after the” balloon boy” incident caught the attention of CNN and erupted into the leading story on every major news station and newscast in America, a friend of mine from Boston opined that since the all-news networks came into existence Americans seem to be less well informed. Year after year since CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC have become major sources of news coverage the American people seem to know less and less. He asked the pertinent question: Is all-news television making America stupid?

From the Canadian side of the border it has always seemed that Americans are incredibly ignorant of the world around them. Perhaps that’s just the way super powers are. I’ve heard Czechs and Poles say the same sorts of thing about the Soviet Union and Russians.

More likely there is more than a little truth to this idea. What the all-news networks have created is a need for speed. Getting on the air first and running with a story is the be-all of CNN and Fox News. This has resulted in journalists not doing their primary jobs as journalists: verifying their sources and facts to be true and accurate. The excuse: who has the time anymore?

The biggest losers in all this rush to air are the viewers, listeners and readers of news. We are reaching a point where the consumer does not know who to trust. Heck the “balloon boy” was the lead on ABC, CBS and NBC. It wasn’t just that the story ran, it was that it ran without question. Looking at that strange silver flying object I know I wondered “where could a kid be in there?” I didn’t see a bulge. I didn’t see feet or arms trying to find a way out. It seemed highly implausible. Yet there were no serious questions on any newscast I viewed until after the incident ended and the boy was found in his own attic. Why? Why ruin a great story is only thing I can think of.

The “balloon boy” wasn’t the only story in recent weeks to draw questions about how U.S. news operations are doing their jobs. A much scarier incident for the public as well as all journalists took place on September 11th, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. CNN ran with the story that there was an impending terrorist attack in Washington, DC.

Here’s how Jamie McIntyre in BS Detector, IMHO, Media Watch, saw the incident:

What fooled CNN into “breaking news” mode was realistic-sounding radio
transmissions from the Coast Guard as it conducted a routine drill to
practice procedures to be used in the event a private boat attempted
to breach the security zone it set up on the river.
There’s an irony here. CNN is one of the few networks that still
routinely monitors police radios to get a jump on news. It’s a bit
of a lost art. As an old radio reporter I listened to scanners all
the time. And they produced plenty of scoops for me over the years,
but as any good police reporter knows, you never, NEVER, report
information heard over a scanner without getting verification. Never.
It’s basic journalism 101. And it would seem that CNN, believing it
would get a jump on a potential major story, violated this inviolate
rule. (When I was at CNN I got plenty of tips from our desk that came
from overheard police or fire department transmissions, but that’s
what they were – “tips,” to be checked out. Not “initial reports” to
be put on the air only to be corrected later.)
Now CNN is certainly not the first major news organization that has
allowed its competitive instincts to overwhelm its better judgment.
Nor will it be the last. But how this story played out illustrates a
number of ways the “new media” environment has lowered standards that
are already hovering dangerously close to the ground.

There have been dozens of similar cases. Recently a media conference by a man claiming to be from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce resulted in Reuters, the New York Times and the Washington Post rushing to publish his astounding pro-environment statement. Fox Business News was actually on air reporting on his remarks when the real Chamber of Commerce folks arrived to put an end to the hoax. It turned out the faker was a man who routinely pulls anti-corporate pranks. None of the journalists there bothered to question his credentials.

Yes we have the tools to report almost instantaneously from anywhere on the globe at any time. But if we don’t use those tools properly, what’s the point? Why has speed become more important than accuracy? I suppose the answer is self evident, competition and ratings. When there’s an election to cover, or there’s an economic crisis, people will tune in to all-news television thus driving the ratings up. On a ho-hum day of normal news there is no reason to switch from ESPN or Oprah. So getting the big story and hyping it is a simple strategy to get viewers to tune in. If you are wrong, so what? So long as you drive the ratings up. Here’s more of what Jamie McIntyre had to say about the Coast Guard incident on September 11th:

Here are some factors present in today’s media universe that
contributed to, and culminated in, CNN’s inexcusable lapse:
Too Good to Check?
The first and biggest mistake CNN made was rushing to air without
waiting to get confirmation from the Coast Guard. This seems so
basic that it’s mindboggling how it could happen. But here’s why.
CNN absolutely believed it had a big story on its hands, and it had
heard it with its own ears. Everything fed that perception. The
Coast Guard was saying nothing. If it were only a drill, usually they
would know that right away. But if something were going on, only then
would authorities be reluctant to give a statement until they could
gather the facts. I’m sure if the people listening to the police
radio had heard any hint that indicated the event might be an
exercise, it would have prompted CNN to employ more caution. But
everyone in the newsroom listened as the radio crackled with the
chilling transmission, “We have expended 10 rounds.” Adrenaline
flowed. The President was nearby. It was Sept 11th. Twenty minutes
had passed and the Coast Guard seemed to be stonewalling, insisting it
still didn’t know what was going on. Finally CNN could contain itself
no longer. Convinced it was sitting on a major story, the folks in
charge rolled the dice and went with it, and figured they would get
confirmation later.
First with the Scoop, First with the Correction: Win/Win!
CNN knew it didn’t have the full story. But in the internet age, no
one waits for the full story anymore. Not even newspapers, which
publish quick writes on their web pages to stay competitive long
before a more thoughtful version is published in the paper. In fact
the 24/7 information marketplace seems to reward rushing to air or the
web with initial, incomplete, and often inaccurate reports. This is
not seen as irresponsibly spreading information before it’s confirmed,
nailed down, or fleshed out, rather it’s seen as getting on the record
with the news that something is happening. Then, as the story is
calibrated, corrected, downscaled, and sometimes dropped by the end of
the day, each revision is treated as a separate scoop. So instead of
scoring just one “first” with a single accurate, complete report, the
news organization racks up a series of “firsts” intended to keep the
viewers/readers coming back for more. First with the bad report,
first with the better report, and finally first with real report.
It’s a win/win/win!

Another insidious aspect of the “rush to be wrong” trend is the
speculation that fills the information vacuum until facts can be
unearthed. In this respect, all-news television can reinforce the
worst tendencies of its reporters. It is fed by the desire of
producers to keep the coverage going on a breaking story even when
they have run out of fresh information. They call their
correspondents and contributors with this question, “Can you play?”
Meaning can you come on the air and say something about what’s going
on. The standard here is, can you “say something,” not “do you have
something worthwhile to say?” This results in a lot of people
babbling on the air who should be out checking the facts, instead of
offering facile and fatuous observations. CNN did this by calling on
its experts and correspondents to weigh in even when they obviously
knew nothing about what was going on. As a friend of mine, a veteran
reporter, commented to me, “What I did not hear anyone say was,
‘according to my sources at the FBI, or according my sources at the
Pentagon…’ “.

As the ratings stand now, CNN has plummeted to 4th place among the all-news networks. They have, for the most part, taken the high road when it comes to opinion and politics. That worked for them during the primaries and election campaign, but now, without the big story, they can’t compete with the bombast and bull over at Fox. It seems, in America you can’t draw an audience with even handedness when there is no big story. The big lies about health care and President Obama’s roots lend themselves to the windbags at Fox. The result is that CNN has had to sensationalize to be noticed.

Are we seeing this in Canada? So far, only to the extent that we have so few resources outside the country that we are dependent on the news people at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Reuters, the very people who are committing the lapses. I am also worried about the new CBC National and CBC’s all-news television channel. They too need ratings. They are resorting to far too much to the talking reporter as opposed to the reporting reporter. What I mean is that they are asking reporters to go on air and tell us what they are hearing rather than what they know. It is a dangerous way of doing business. And in Canada it is not only done for ratings purposes, it is also done to fill time. How can you fill a newscast with relevant news if the report is not yet completed? Simple, have the reporter come on air and spout innuendo for a minute. The viewer gets the impression of news even when there is none.

Is there an answer to this sorry state of affairs in journalism? I suspect we are in the middle of a revolution in news gathering business. How the internet, TV, radio and print settle out in the next few years will determine where journalism will land. One can only hope that journalism goes back into in the hands of the journalism professionals, not the bloggers, sensationalists, accountants, ad salespeople, TV doctors and bureaucrats who are all playing too large a role today.

Filed under: Media Commentary, ABC, CBC News, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, Reuters, The National, The New York Times, The Washington Post

The Late Show starts early

Those in the know: the critics, the intelligentsia, the elites have already started. After one show Jay Leno is getting panned unmercifully. His interview with Kanye West, just one day after West’s major faux pas at the VMA’s, is being cited as an example of Leno’s inability to connect with his guests. Leno is being demonized for asking Kanye what his dead mother would say about his rude antics the night before, a middle-America question if there ever was one. Leno’s monologue, they say, was just not funny.

Still, the same critics, as always, loved Jerry Seinfeld and admitted the musical number at the car wash was both funny and good.

Let’s take a step back here. While I am no fan, the truth is Leno knows his audience. They want big name stars (Seinfeld, Oprah, West, Jay-Z, Rihanna) and they got them. They want jokes they understand and don’t want to have to think about. They want to be entertained. The quality of the interviewing is not important. The fact that the audience could see Kanye West and hear him attempt to answer for what happened just one day earlier, as the commercial says, was priceless.

I know, I know, Leno is no Letterman. For NBC, that’s a good thing. The last thing any network is looking for is a cult hit. Cult hits are for cable. NBC needs the masses to jump on board. We’re talking prime time here, not late night. The only question is will audiences watch Leno when the blockbuster dramas begin next week? The answer, I think, is that it depends on whether Leno can continue to get the biggest names in show biz to appear on his program, especially when there is controversy involved. If so the audience will grow. If Leno gets big enough audiences, the stars will have to appear. Prime time and a big audience to sell yourself or your new movie is a mighty big draw. The bigger the audiences the more stars, the more stars the bigger the audiences.

I see the Leno show as the perpetual second choice at ten p.m. If you don’t like the ABC or CBS drama Leno becomes a real choice, something different, alternate programming, better than watching the Fox Seinfeld re-runs for the 52nd time. Leno’s numbers should be especially good when the networks begin their inevitable re-runs. CBC ratings shot up the year of the strike in the U.S. when the networks were forced to re-run show after show. Leno will be especially strong in December and during the summer when there is little new to watch on television. If he attracts the biggest stars he will also get viewers to PVR his show.

All-in-all it’s an interesting strategy for NBC. They looked at Leno who consistently beat Letterman at 11:30 and concluded he speaks to middle-America. His appeal is wide. Guests don’t hate or fear him. Many stars just don’t want to appear on Letterman to be abused. Leno’s interviews are soft, seldom does he ask the hard question or demean his guests. He’s a risk-free commodity, no home runs, but no strike outs either.

The real bottom line here is the bottom line. Leno’s show is incredibly cheap compared to any drama. It’s even cheap compared to some of the big reality shows. NBC can produce a week of Leno for less than it costs to make a single episode of Law and Order. So audiences will have to be really dismal to force the cancellation of this show. Think about 20/20 and Dateline, both shows are perennial ratings losers yet both programs have had long lives on network prime time. The reason: they are cheap. Even with poor ratings the programs make enough money to not just pay for themselves, but to actually make a healthy profit.

So let’s not argue about whether we like Leno or not, or whether he’s as good as Letterman. The fact is his non-obtrusive appeal and ability to attract big names to his show is exactly what NBC was looking for. Television audiences have never been known to accept the high concept or avant garde. CSI draws way more viewers than Mad Men. Sure it hurts to contemplate the mediocrity that network television so often aspires to. But in the end where does the fault lie? With the networks who need to make money to survive or the consumers who chose American Idol in huge numbers?

Cheap, or as my former partner used to say, “at a price,” is what most network TV is all about. We saw it first with reality television. Then came the big game shows. Now it’s the 21st century talent shows. If Leno succeeds will his success mark the beginning of a trend to prime time talk and variety? I think it will. The copycats always follow every success. In the end the real scary prospect is how reality, game shows, talent contests and now talk could squeeze drama and sit-coms off the networks. Just when CBC decides to get into drama in a big way, U.S. networks are running in the opposite direction. Costs of up to $3 million an episode will do that. The golden age of television is long gone. Welcome to the bronze age.

If you get the opportunity please go to www.newsy.com/video/death_of_the_american_actor/ for an interesting American view on what’s happening to network TV.

Filed under: Media Commentary, 20/20, ABC, Amrican Idol, CBC, CBS, CSI, Dateline, David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Kanye West, Mad Men, NBC, Oprah