TORONTO, ONTARIO - The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS)'s radio division in the United States, which has gone by a variety of names in recent decades, has had a poor history with the Internet. When the reviled Mel Karmazin, now CEO of Sirius XM, was running CBS radio under the Infinity name, he stated that he would never put a CBS station in the Internet, and indeed none of the famous CBS news or music stations were available on-line.
After Karmazin moved on, all that changed. The big CBS news stations, from KCBS in San Francisco to WINS in New York, started live streams on the Internet, and so did their music stations. A few stations went all-out for podcasting, with WCBS in New York creating a variety of podcast streams, even including the CBS network's Dave Ross commentaries. Over time, a variety of CBS podcasts, from the weekly 60 Minutes and Face the Nation to the four-times-daily Osgood File, made it onto my podcast list.
The signs that trouble was coming started when The Osgood File began to feature advertising. It really didn't bother me that much, since the radio version has a minute and a half of advertising associated with it, and the podcast had only thirty (later forty-five) seconds. If that's what it takes for the podcast to continue, so be it. The information was still free, just like the radio broadcast, and it was easy to listen to at my convenience.
Then, in mid-July, the CBS-owned-and-operated news station in Boston, WBZ-AM, dropped the podcast of its Jon Keller commentaries when it revised its web site. There remained a Jon Keller blog on the web site, but the audio was no longer available as a podcast. One had to visit the web page and click on the link so that an advertisement would show in a special window as the commentary played. I e-mailed to complain and pointed out that Keller's commentary was worthwhile to me if it came as an automatically-downloaded podcast, but if I had to actively go to their web site and click around, I wasn't going to bother. Indeed, I don't know what Keller's cynical mind has contemplating since.
Today, I discovered that they've done the same thing with the network Dave Ross commentaries. The podcast is gone. The commentaries remain on the WCBS-AM web site, but one has to click on them to listen, and an ad comes first. I'm not going to bother--I might think about doing that when I'm home in the evening, but there's no way I'm going to do that while traveling and my time on the Internet is limited.
If CBS is going to stop podcasting, then I'm going to stop listening to CBS programming. There's too much quality programming out there that I can get more easily. The really annoying thing is that they already have a model for incorporating advertising--used for the Osgood File of incorporating the advertising into the podcast--that serves the same purpose of accommodating advertising. They don't need to eliminate their podcasts in order to get advertising revenue. They're making their content harder to access, and I won't be the only one that will ignore it as a result.
Some companies don't get it, and it appears that CBS is in that category again. I've spent my whole life enjoying CBS programming, but it looks like that era may be coming to an end because they're going backwards in their use of the Internet and eliminating podcasts.
Showing posts with label CBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBS. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Media: Just Like CBS
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Upon moving to Canada, I shortly discovered that I found many aspects of the CBC Radio One schedule comforting. This wasn't really a surprise; after all, I had long listened to CBC programming since first discovering what was then "Sunday Morning" (now "The Sunday Edition") and "Quirks and Quarks" while in college, and had just added more as time went on. What it took me some time to realize, though, was that one of the reasons that I found the CBC schedule so comforting was that it resembled the CBS radio news of my youth.
Once upon a time, CBS ran a fifteen-minute news program (which ran without commercials in some, mostly minor, markets) at 7 in the morning (Central and Pacific time, anyway; it ran at 8 Eastern and 6 Mountain, which is to say it aired twice, once for most of the country and once for the west coast) called the CBS World News Roundup. Apparently, this broadcast was inaugurated in 1938, hosted by Robert Trout. In my lifetime, it was hosted by Bill Lynch until his retirement. The broadcast in fact survives to this day, shortened in length to eight minutes of content on weekdays and available as a podcast hosted by Nick Young. The CBC has a similar broadcast, "World Report" which airs ten minutes (until recently, twelve) of news at the top of the hour in morning at 5, 6, 7, and 8 (9 on weekends). I just felt like I was listening to the World News Roundup.
In the evening, CBS used to have a similar broadcast that always had commercials but had over ten minutes of content, the World Tonight. Airing at 6 Pacific (6 Eastern, 5 Central and Mountain, so it was fed three times), it was hosted by Christopher Glenn until he moved to the morning Roundup. This show also survives as the World News Roundup Late Edition with Bill Whitney (now just seven minutes of content, fed once at 7 Eastern/4 Pacific). The CBC does even the CBS of the past one better, with nearly a half-hour of news in "The World at Six". Listening to Bernie McNamee is just like listening to Christopher Glenn.
It goes beyond the special news broadcasts, though. CBS used to air a Saturday morning show a half-hour in length (not carried in many markets) called "Seven Days" that summarized what had happened that week in Congress. That should sound familiar to CBC listeners--substitute parliament and that's pretty much the premise of the 48-minute "The House", airing at 9:10 Saturday mornings. I'm not sure when "Seven Days" was canceled, but the House is still running strong.
Of course, there's plenty that CBC does that CBS has never done in the modern era--everything from the news magazines ("As It Happens", "The Current", and "The Sunday Edition") to specialty shows like "Quirks and Quarks" and "White Coat, Black Art", and entertainment shows like "Vinyl Cafe" and "Definitely Not the Opera" (er, "DNTO"). One thing that CBS has always done well that CBC does not do is short-form commentary. Charles Osgood has been a staple my whole lifetime, but at different times, they've also run regular commentaries by Dan Rather, Judy Muller, Bill Whitney, Harry Reasoner, Charles Kuralt, Harry Smith, and in recent times Dave Ross. I wouldn't mind if CBC found a way to incorporate such two-minute features.
Presumably, CBS pioneered the formats and the CBC adopted them and improved them over the years. In any event, the CBC is keeping alive a radio feel that is largely gone from CBS, even if some of the programs survive, and I appreciate that.
Once upon a time, CBS ran a fifteen-minute news program (which ran without commercials in some, mostly minor, markets) at 7 in the morning (Central and Pacific time, anyway; it ran at 8 Eastern and 6 Mountain, which is to say it aired twice, once for most of the country and once for the west coast) called the CBS World News Roundup. Apparently, this broadcast was inaugurated in 1938, hosted by Robert Trout. In my lifetime, it was hosted by Bill Lynch until his retirement. The broadcast in fact survives to this day, shortened in length to eight minutes of content on weekdays and available as a podcast hosted by Nick Young. The CBC has a similar broadcast, "World Report" which airs ten minutes (until recently, twelve) of news at the top of the hour in morning at 5, 6, 7, and 8 (9 on weekends). I just felt like I was listening to the World News Roundup.
In the evening, CBS used to have a similar broadcast that always had commercials but had over ten minutes of content, the World Tonight. Airing at 6 Pacific (6 Eastern, 5 Central and Mountain, so it was fed three times), it was hosted by Christopher Glenn until he moved to the morning Roundup. This show also survives as the World News Roundup Late Edition with Bill Whitney (now just seven minutes of content, fed once at 7 Eastern/4 Pacific). The CBC does even the CBS of the past one better, with nearly a half-hour of news in "The World at Six". Listening to Bernie McNamee is just like listening to Christopher Glenn.
It goes beyond the special news broadcasts, though. CBS used to air a Saturday morning show a half-hour in length (not carried in many markets) called "Seven Days" that summarized what had happened that week in Congress. That should sound familiar to CBC listeners--substitute parliament and that's pretty much the premise of the 48-minute "The House", airing at 9:10 Saturday mornings. I'm not sure when "Seven Days" was canceled, but the House is still running strong.
Of course, there's plenty that CBC does that CBS has never done in the modern era--everything from the news magazines ("As It Happens", "The Current", and "The Sunday Edition") to specialty shows like "Quirks and Quarks" and "White Coat, Black Art", and entertainment shows like "Vinyl Cafe" and "Definitely Not the Opera" (er, "DNTO"). One thing that CBS has always done well that CBC does not do is short-form commentary. Charles Osgood has been a staple my whole lifetime, but at different times, they've also run regular commentaries by Dan Rather, Judy Muller, Bill Whitney, Harry Reasoner, Charles Kuralt, Harry Smith, and in recent times Dave Ross. I wouldn't mind if CBC found a way to incorporate such two-minute features.
Presumably, CBS pioneered the formats and the CBC adopted them and improved them over the years. In any event, the CBC is keeping alive a radio feel that is largely gone from CBS, even if some of the programs survive, and I appreciate that.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Media: Tell Me A Story
TORONTO, ONTARIO - The death last Wednesday of CBS superstar producer Don Hewitt, who has been influential since the early days of television and whose seminal project, 60 Minutes, continues in his format to this day, has set a lot of people thinking about his influence on the industry. Admittedly, I have mixed feelings, but in my final analysis I have to conclude that Hewitt and 60 Minutes have been a clear positive influence; the decline in the medium lies elsewhere.
It would be hard for me to criticize 60 Minutes too much as I have watched or listened to it essentially my entire life. Not only has it been a staple of my Sunday nights, but it is a touchstone with virtually everyone else in my life. I can ask anyone from my grandparents to old high school friends living across the United States about a story that just ran on 60 Minutes and the odds are that they have watched it and have opinions shaped in part by what they have seen. No other weekly hard news-based program has that kind of power with so many people that I know.
How can that be? As has been said many times in recent days, it all comes down to Hewitt's mantra: "Tell me a story." 60 Minutes tells good stories. Every week I look for a quality radio program to share, and the most likely candidates are shows like This American Life and As It Happens that tell good stories. I may not pick those shows every week, but they are only rarely not good radio. 60 Minutes is good television for the same reason, how it tells stories. It was Hewitt that worked unceasingly to make sure that it did.
Some, including Hewitt himself, have pondered whether 60 Minutes ruined news on television. First, by showing that a news program could make money, it may have started a death spiral for the standard nightly newscast. I think that argument is crazy--if 60 Minutes had never been tried, I suspect news departments just would have been cut faster. Secondly, by emphasizing stories rather than facts, it distorted journalism into entertainment. This is a more serious charge, and it has substance to it. Anyone who was in Washington state in the 1989 will not forgive 60 Minutes for single-handedly creating the ALAR scare, which the apple industry to this day claims cost it $100 million. A long list of people have similarly been made out as villains because it made a better story.
Yet, the genius of 60 Minutes is that it is fundamentally based on journalism. When they make large enough mistakes, they correct them explicitly themselves. Smaller ones are addressed by other journalists reporting on other programs or other media such as newspapers or these days on web sites that refute the stories told on 60 Minutes. Newspapers make mistakes as well for a variety of reasons, and these also get corrected in the media space by competitors. I don't think 60 Minutes can be faulted for being in error on occasion just because its format is more susceptible to bias than the front page of a newspaper, especially in an era of explicitly biased media like political bloggers, Fox News, and MSNBC.
The decay in the quality of television, particularly its journalism, didn't come from 60 Minutes or similar programs on other networks like 20/20 or Dateline. It came from entertainment programs masquerading as news like Inside Edition and Hard Copy. (I don't even fault Entertainment Tonight--I mean, the title says that it isn't a serious program, and it arguably doesn't pretend to be.) It came from cable networks with way too much time to fill who turned to contrived debate and opinions, sometimes borrowing from talk radio, and placed it on supposedly-news channels. The worst segments on 60 Minutes compare favorably from a journalistic perspective with any segment of the now-canceled programs Crossfire and A Current Affair.
The 60 Minutes special on Don Hewitt that aired last night solidified this opinion in my mind. Seeing Hewitt work on storytelling, even his arguments with Mike Wallace over what facts to include, showed me that he may represent style over substance, but he was dead in the water without the substance. There's nothing wrong with selling sizzle with the steak, as long as it is steak and not hamburger, and if that is Hewitt's legacy, I find that to be a positive one.
It would be hard for me to criticize 60 Minutes too much as I have watched or listened to it essentially my entire life. Not only has it been a staple of my Sunday nights, but it is a touchstone with virtually everyone else in my life. I can ask anyone from my grandparents to old high school friends living across the United States about a story that just ran on 60 Minutes and the odds are that they have watched it and have opinions shaped in part by what they have seen. No other weekly hard news-based program has that kind of power with so many people that I know.
How can that be? As has been said many times in recent days, it all comes down to Hewitt's mantra: "Tell me a story." 60 Minutes tells good stories. Every week I look for a quality radio program to share, and the most likely candidates are shows like This American Life and As It Happens that tell good stories. I may not pick those shows every week, but they are only rarely not good radio. 60 Minutes is good television for the same reason, how it tells stories. It was Hewitt that worked unceasingly to make sure that it did.
Some, including Hewitt himself, have pondered whether 60 Minutes ruined news on television. First, by showing that a news program could make money, it may have started a death spiral for the standard nightly newscast. I think that argument is crazy--if 60 Minutes had never been tried, I suspect news departments just would have been cut faster. Secondly, by emphasizing stories rather than facts, it distorted journalism into entertainment. This is a more serious charge, and it has substance to it. Anyone who was in Washington state in the 1989 will not forgive 60 Minutes for single-handedly creating the ALAR scare, which the apple industry to this day claims cost it $100 million. A long list of people have similarly been made out as villains because it made a better story.
Yet, the genius of 60 Minutes is that it is fundamentally based on journalism. When they make large enough mistakes, they correct them explicitly themselves. Smaller ones are addressed by other journalists reporting on other programs or other media such as newspapers or these days on web sites that refute the stories told on 60 Minutes. Newspapers make mistakes as well for a variety of reasons, and these also get corrected in the media space by competitors. I don't think 60 Minutes can be faulted for being in error on occasion just because its format is more susceptible to bias than the front page of a newspaper, especially in an era of explicitly biased media like political bloggers, Fox News, and MSNBC.
The decay in the quality of television, particularly its journalism, didn't come from 60 Minutes or similar programs on other networks like 20/20 or Dateline. It came from entertainment programs masquerading as news like Inside Edition and Hard Copy. (I don't even fault Entertainment Tonight--I mean, the title says that it isn't a serious program, and it arguably doesn't pretend to be.) It came from cable networks with way too much time to fill who turned to contrived debate and opinions, sometimes borrowing from talk radio, and placed it on supposedly-news channels. The worst segments on 60 Minutes compare favorably from a journalistic perspective with any segment of the now-canceled programs Crossfire and A Current Affair.
The 60 Minutes special on Don Hewitt that aired last night solidified this opinion in my mind. Seeing Hewitt work on storytelling, even his arguments with Mike Wallace over what facts to include, showed me that he may represent style over substance, but he was dead in the water without the substance. There's nothing wrong with selling sizzle with the steak, as long as it is steak and not hamburger, and if that is Hewitt's legacy, I find that to be a positive one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)