AT&T Time Warner deal a sign of things to come

The ground shook across the TV landscape when a potential AT&T Time Warner deal was announced, forewarning investors and competitors that the behemoths are taking the changed landscape seriously.

The deal, at a cost of $85 billion, is a long shot to be approved by regulators. Even it fails, it demonstrates how jumbled the era of Peak TV has become.

AT&T Time Warner deal
The AT&T Time Warner deal is a sign of the future

Our viewing habits have changed drastically over the last few years, with many cutting the cord, streaming services taking preference (especially among the coveted Millennials) and even ratings for the NFL dipping. Everyone connected to the industry is trying to figure out how to win – and how to survive.

The idea behind an AT&T Time Warner deal is to own both the content and delivery of programming. The strategy is akin to that of Netflix, producing original programming because content providers have become increasing unlikely to make licensing deals with it. They want to own distribution as well.

With that in mind, there are all kinds of rumors about forthcoming deals. Disney will buy Netflix (unlikely, although the two did finalize an exclusive deal for Netflix to stream Pixar and Marvel movies). Comcast will look to another mobile carrier, like T-Mobile or Sprint. (Or even Dish.) Already, Charter is merging with Time Warner Cable (not to be confused with Time Warner).

Will any of these rumored acquisitions or mergers actually work?

What the AT&T Time Warner deal means.

Most analysts are skeptical, noting that Time Warner would be in danger of losing its fees from cable systems if it gave AT&T customers shows it owns, like Game of Thrones.

But I’m not. The old ways of doing things mean that content providers and distributors would just stand pat. They can’t do that. The downfall of Peak TV is that there’s simply too much of it. (Much of it good, mind you.) There will be a bubble that bursts at some point. The ones left standing will be the ones that control both ends of the creative spectrum.

The AT&T Time Warner deal may not be approved. But it won’t be the last one t0 get considered. These deals aren’t about gaining increased market share. They are about survival.

The appealing brand of Shark Tank

I am not the easiest audience to impress. Just ask my son, who this past weekend attempted to share a segment from the Comedy Central sketch series, Key & Peele. While he was laughed so hard that tears streamed down his face (the segment was one entitled “High on Potenuse”) mine barely moved a muscle. I could see his intrigue in the show, but regretfully, I won’t be binge watching that series any time soon.

I love just anything on PBS. It was easy for me to become ridiculously infatuated with the HBO series’ The Sopranos and The Wire. Lately, though, I have been snarked by Shark Tank.

Shark Tank
The appeal of Shark Tank lies in the belief in entrepreneurship.

Shark Tank has filled up the capacity of my DVR. Simply put, I cannot get enough. There is something I admire about each of the “sharks.” They have wits about them, they follow their gut and are willing to take a leap of faith more times than not. And they are entertaining.

Shark Tank taps into a universal belief.

In the past I’ve hinted at my viewership of the Tank and have even blogged on products presented on the show. But now’s the time to give the show a complete piece of my mind.

With the risk of sounding hokey, Shark Tank is good medicine for our county. It’s the “American Dream” at its finest. It’s a platform where entrepreneurs with a great idea (or a bad one, even) has a chance to fully realize their potential. Shark Tank also offers helpful feedback from a group of folks who understand brand remarkably well.

The show’s brand power comes from the belief that anyone can be successful, if they are just innovative enough and work hard. That’s a belief many of us share. So we put ourselves in the position of the those presenting new products and those judging them.

I cannot recommend it enough. As for me, I have another episode, or 30, to catch up on.

Politically ignorant generation of sheep

Are we the generation of the politically ignorant?

politically ignorantThe word ignorant gets its root from the word ignore. Someone who is ignorant is someone who ignores. Because we ignore, we are politically ignorant.

I worry about the future of my government because I live with generations of the ignorant. We have almost no sources of news today other than the slimy slanted broadcast news stations and broadcast news centers.

Things have changed and not all change is progress.

When I was a young person, the TV networks took news seriously. The vision of Walter Annenberg attempted to present the top news stories of the day in 30-minute segments every evening.

Some even adopted 60-minute formats and news anchors tried to present the facts. Editorial content was reserved for a few small moments every few weeks when the station’s editorial staff expressly present an opinion piece.

Politically ignorant was not Walter CronkiteThere were inherent reasons why this format worked. Americans, by and large, received or purchased a daily newspaper. These papers subscribed to international bureaus like the AP or UPI and the larger papers had reporters stationed all over the globe, collecting, dissecting and evaluating the validity of the world’s happenings.

The broadcast news bureaus were not designated as profit centers. They were part of the station’s charter to serve the public interest. No one confused or polluted the broadcasts or segments as entertainment. Few were politically ignorant.

When CBS, NBC, and ABC covered the political conventions, the news anchor (like Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley) watched the event and acted as a master of ceremony diverting the live cameras to the stories taking place on the convention floor.

Everyday beat reporters, like the soon to become famous Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, asked hard hitting questions of Mayor Daley or Everett Dirkson.

What do we have today?

Drivel. Politically ignorant drivel.

Panels of talking heads replay scripted spin. The conventions themselves lack the drama of even the Academy Awards. The reason? All the outcomes and decisions are known before the convention itself. The result is ignorance.

Politically ignorantWho needs to make a considered decision when you can tune into any specific political broadcast and see and hear only from proselytizers and pundits that already agree with your pre-determined decisions?

How many Americans believe that Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly are newsmen?

This lack of discourse makes ignorance comfortable and worse still acceptable. How many of you have heard of the Pulitzer Prize-winning web site called Politifact? It is a web site dedicated to political fact checking. It looks for misinformation on both sides of the aisle.

Today, if you are unhappy with the way government is working (or not working), I say that we get the government we deserve. And we deserve the government we get.

the results of being politically ignorantI am NOT outraged over Donald Trump’s political comments concerning Russians and emails. I AM outraged that his supporters are not providing any political incentives or consequences to stop this unfiltered crap.

Political benefits at what cost? Diplomacy works only through back doors not through bullying tactics. As a nation, we pretend to abhor bulling in our schools but we seem to have no problem rewarding it in the important geopolitical arena.

So what is the end result of political thought that is unchallenged and ignored? History tells us the unbelievable and the inconceivable happens when rational objection and forethought goes out the window.

When it is suggested that we could make ourselves safer and preserve our culture… the silent majority nods in agreement. Let’s put the Jews in camps.

A new first-rate Netflix series: Stranger Things

I have a new obsession.

Stranger Things
Stranger Things even has Winona Ryder.

It’s a brand spanking new television series on Netflix called Stranger Things. Don’t worry, if you haven’t yet seen this series, you won’t find any spoilers here. Rather, you’ll get a nod to Netflix and also to the crew of the show for its attention to setting and entertaining storytelling.

Netflix, as well as Amazon and Hulu for that matter, have revolutionized home entertainment. Each is changing this landscape as we once knew it. These streaming services, through creative television series and film, have become a go-to for many. So much so that many of those Netflix watchers have cut their cable cords.

Stranger Things fits into the agenda of streaming networks seamlessly and stands out as one of the best. I think it deserves a place alongside House of Cards, Mozart in the Jungle, Orange is the New Black and Transparent as the upper tier of streaming content.

Stranger Things is binge-worthy TV

My social media feeds are going crazy with posts by folks who are plowing through the series in a day or two. My wife and I want to as well, but are forcing ourselves to watch only an episode a night to savor it.

What I love about the show is that it’s a sci-fi thriller that calls back to the 80s in its own original way while paying homage to that era. It’s peppered with a dynamic synthesizer score, ala John Carpenter, and classic 80’s tunes. The attire is just right, too (big hair, hip huggers and popped collars). At times, it feels like I am watching a near and dear cousin of Goonies, Stand By Me and E.T.. It’s so good that it fits right in with that crew of 80’s classics. The creators, the Duffer Brothers, have said that those movies and others were inspirations.

And don’t think Stranger Things is simply a copycat. About the third episode, it becomes its own thing.

That’s why it’s not all that surprising that Stranger Things is garnering a 90% rating from a coterie of critics on Rotten Tomatoes and a 9.2 user rating from IMDB.

Give Stranger Things some love. You won’t be disappointed.

Facebook as news. Where will it stop?

Do we now view Facebook as news? Is it a news source?

After a live, 10-minute video of a police officer shooting a black man (Philando Castile) in Minnesota was posted on Facebook, there is a great deal of chatter about Facebook’s role in news and its responsibility because it seemed it was a media outlet posting NEWS. Facebook as NEWS has become a topic of discussion.

Philander Castille and Facebook as newsI want to say right from the start that this blog post will not touch on the footage or the event. Neither will it speak to the shooting of police officers in Dallas. This blog is about Facebook as a news organization.

Should Facebook post live videos of events? Does it have any responsibility of content? To my thinking, Facebook is schizophrenic on this subject. It censors copyrighted material. You can’t post a video on Facebook of your children at a playground if you have placed a sound bed in the background of a popular song.

Facebook wont publish it. I can’t post a photograph on my Facebook feed with text in it (like a sign that says STOP for example) because Facebook has a policy of not boosting a post with an image that contains a certain percentage of words in it. Nudity is not allowed.

Where is this going?

Facebook as news
Nick Berg

But you can post a live video of a young man bleeding to death. The images are abhorrent. No one argues with that. But where does it stop?

If Abu Musab al-Zarqawi posted a live video of his beheading Nick Berg, do you think Facebook would allow it? Not on your life.

If it did, the uproar from society would unfathomable. It seems to me that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Think abut this. Would nudity be OK on Facebook as long as it was a live video of a rape? Where does our voyeurism end?

Facebook is a part of our lives to be sure. But Facebook as news should not be.

Are we to blame for Facebook as NEWS?

Why has this happened? Why is it that for many, social media has become their news source?

Facebook as news and Fox NewsI know a good deal about branding. I know that a need in a target market creates demand. I know that meeting that need is a predictor of success. I know that we get what we deserve as often as we get what we need.

The real issue here is a turning away from real news and substituting it with pop-culture drivel. Broadcast news is just entertainment masquerading as news. The public gets affinity news broadcasting (broadcast news that sells an agenda and bias) because it does not want news.

It wants agreement with our own ignorance (from the root of IGNORE). In our hearts we know that what we see on Fox and CNN is not news. Its bent entertainment. Facebook as News. Cronkite never dreamed of it

When CBS decided that its news bureau needed to be a profit center rather than a public service, more than just personality died when Walter Cronkite passed away. We lost NEWS.

Think about the demise of the newspaper. Subscriptions are in decline. Reporters are being let go and readership is running for cover.

There is responsibility in live postings

Facebook as news and Marshall McLuen
Marshall McLuen

To my thinking, I am upset that Facebook posts crap like this. There is no editorial ownership, as there once was with CBS. Facebook thinks it is doing a public service by showing our lives in its raw experiential form. I think we have enough reality TV, thank you very much. I don’t need to see everything in its raw form.

I need that as much as I need the bizarre talking heads on Fox News spinning everything they report. I’m hungry for knowledge, not to witness the wost of humanity. Will Facebook spend time and money making sure that similar videos are edited for agendas? When will we be finished as a modern society of Peeping Tom’s?

I think the killing in Minneapolis would have been real news without the Facebook post. The news was not the shooting. The news was that it was “captured live on Facebook. Marshall McLuhan was right. The medium IS the message. Too bad. Too bad.