Right Wisconsin subscribers can read my thoughts about retiring Sen. Dale Schultz (R–Richland Center), which include …
This might fit a definition of political courage today: According to one of the tributes in a newspaper in his Senate district, Schultz stood up at a meeting on the proposed Lac du Flambeau Chippewa casino in Shullsburg and announced he was opposed to expanding gambling in Wisconsin. He also voted against the bill to reform the process of reviewing school tribal nicknames, despite the presence of seven high schools with Indian nicknames within his Senate district.
The Act 10 and tribal nickname votes are freebies in a sense, since both passed without Schultz’s vote. On the other hand, Schultz’s vote against the2012 mining expansion bill killed the bill, since Schultz voted with all 16 Democrats against the bill. Schultz appears to be against Walker’s Road to Prosperity tax cuts, claiming not a single constituent of his favored tax cuts as the first use of the state surplus. That makes one think Schultz has stopped listening to his constituents who are more conservative than he is, or those constituents have decided to stop talking to Schultz.
… and the response wasn’t unanimous, as Rowe writes on his Facebook page.
Let’s start with Kevin Groce.
“Mike – Walmart was the last thing I would ever think you would do anything for! Why?
Hi Kevin,
That’s easy. Walmart has committed to purchase 250 billion dollars of American made products over the next decade. In essence, that’s a purchase order made out to the USA for a quarter of a trillion dollars. That means dozens of American factories are going to reopen all over the country. Millions of dollars will pour straight into local economies, and hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing positions will need to be filled. That’s a massive undertaking packed with enormous challenges, and I want to help. I want to see them succeed. Don’t you? Honestly Kevin, who gives a crap about your feelings toward Walmart? Who gives a crap about mine? Isn’t this the kind of initiative we can all get behind?? …
Hopefully, I’ll redeem myself in the future. But I’ve never supported the “underdog” simply because they’re not the favorite. Size might matter in some pursuits, (I’ve been assured it does,) but in business, there’s nothing inherently good about being small, and nothing inherently bad about being big. My foundation supports skilled labor, American manufacturing, entrepreneurial risk, a solid work ethic, and personal responsibility. We reward these qualities wherever we find them, whether they’re in David or Goliath. …
I think anything on television, especially a commercial with a big claim delivered by a professional spokesman should always be questioned. But if the country can’t get behind a program like this, I’m afraid we are all well and truly screwed. …
There’s a lot of merchandise currently in Walmart that’s manufactured right here in the USA – (including Dirty Jobs Cleaning Products.) But let’s assume – for the purpose of conversation – that Walmart did get every single item from China. Wouldn’t you like to see that change? Watch the ad again. Walmart is promising to buy 250 billion dollars of American made stuff and put it on their shelves. Whatever else you might think of the company, can you really root against an initiative like that? Let me ask it another way. Do you really think America has any hope of reinvigorating our manufacturing base without support from the biggest retailer in the world? …
Remember, this is Walmart making the claim. They have to make good on it, because if they’re blowing smoke, their detractors will eat them alive. I believe this thing is going to happen because they are completely out of the closet with it. Walmart is going to buy a quarter trillion dollars of American made goods in the next ten years and put those goods on their shelves. The only question is whether or not Americans will support that effort. If they do, we just might be looking at a stimulus that actually stimulates something.
Rose Marie Bayless writes –
“Dear Mike – There’s only one little problem with your new commercial for Walmart….and that is that they do NOT provide manufacturing jobs.”
Hi Rose. You’re correct – Walmart doesn’t “provide” manufacturing jobs. Mostly because they’re not a manufacturing company. They’re a retailer. They buy all sorts of things from all sorts of suppliers all over the world, which they then sell to millions of Americans. In fact, 60% of all Americans shop there. That’s why Walmart is so successful. And that’s why they can do a great deal to encourage their suppliers to manufacture goods domestically. That’s what this initiative is all about – a financial commitment to buy from American suppliers.
“Hey, I am on your side here, I want “made in America” too but make you’re sure on the side of the WORKER not the corporate greed side ok Mike? Love ya.”
Love ya back, Rose, but no thanks. You offer up a false and dangerous choice. The world is bigger than “Workers vs. Bosses,” and so is this campaign. Remember, Walmart thrives because a majority of Americans like to shop there. Like Apple, Discovery, Ford, and Facebook, Walmart does not exist for the purpose of employing people. No successful company does. Walmart’s first order of business is to serve their customer. Ultimately, the customer calls the shots. Not management. Not labor. Jobs are just a happy consequence of that success. …
Most portrayals of work gravitate to one extreme or the other. Dream Jobs and Dangerous Jobs make better TV that Normal Jobs. With Dirty Jobs, I got lucky. We featured regular, hardworking people, covered with crap, but happy in their work. There was no talk about jobs being “good or bad.” The people on Dirty Jobs saw work as an opportunity, and they took pride in what they did. I loved that. This spot reminded me of the people I met on my show. I was struck by how familiar they looked. I guess that’s what happens when you cast real people…
omingUnglued
Feb. 8, 2014 at 4:41pm
“Walmart can be a hero here. Just do it! I’ll shop there when they do! We want everything clean and nice. No dirty manufacturing for us, no stinky farms. Wake up America, where are your dirty manufacturing jobs now, overseas that’s where. Where are all the farms? Where is your food coming from? Overseas, check the labels in the grocery stores.”
You’re right, Unglued. Walmart can change the game. But the business of filling a few hundred thousand new factory jobs is not a slam dunk. Because in spite of high unemployment, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs currently exist that no one seems to want. That little piece of the narrative doesn’t get a lot of press, but it should. Because the skills gap is real, and it’s a mistake to assume that people will line up to take jobs that so many people love to disparage.
One of the real disconnects around this issue for me has been the steady drumbeat of unemployment in the headlines. I know that the labor participation rate is at historic lows. I know that millions are out of work. But I also know that I’ve seen Help Wanted signs in all 50 states. Even at the height of the recession, the employers I met on Dirty Jobs were all hiring. They still are. And they all told me the same thing – the biggest challenge of running a business was finding people who were willing to learn a new skill and work hard.
I like this campaign because at it’s heart, it portrays hard work as something dignified and decent. Lot’s of people will criticize these spots as nothing but PR. But PR matters. A lot. Because right now, people are disconnected from the part of our workforce that still makes things. We can’t reinvigorate the trades until we agree and understand the importance of buying American. Again – who can be against that? …
Sean Murray’s not done with me. He writes again,
“Misguided. Mike Rowe should have never done this ad due to the fact it came from WalMart. I like the message, but Walmart is one of the reasons a lot of manufacturing was lost in the United States. The vast majority of merchandise Walmart sells in the U.S. is manufactured abroad. The company searches the world for the cheapest goods possible, and this means buying from low-wage factories overseas. Walmart boasts of direct relationships with nearly 20,000 Chinese suppliers, and purchased $27 billion worth of Chinese-made goods in 2006. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Walmart’s trade with China alone eliminated 133,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2006 and accounted for 11.2 percent of the nation’s total job loss due to trade. With $419 billion in annual net sales, Walmart’s market power is so immense that blah, blah, blah…”
Forgive me Sean, but I’ve replaced the rest of your rant with “blah blah blah” because it appears to have been cut and pasted word for word from a political site dedicated to destroying Walmart. And also because reactions like yours are the reason our country is paralyzed. You’re like the diehard conservatives who freaked out because I sat too close to Bill Maher, and the diehard liberals that got all bent when I got too close to Glenn Beck. You’re stuck in your own narrative.
Step back for a minute. Look at what’s happening here. Walmart has just promised to do something you claim to want them to do. How do you react? Do you encourage them? Do you support them? No. You hold fast to the the party line. You lash out. Our country is falling apart around us, and you criticize me. For what? For doing a voiceover on a commercial that celebrates the dignity of hard work? I realize you’d prefer it if Costco was pushing this campaign forward, but guess what – they’re not.
But, maybe they will? Maybe they’ll all get on board? Target, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Macy’s, Dollar General, Home Depot, Lowe’s…maybe they’ll all make similar commitments to American manufacturing? And maybe Americans will finally make it easy by demanding and buying more American made products. So far – that hasn’t happened. Maybe Walmart will break the logjam. Someone has to at least try, don’t you think?
Seriously Sean, do you and all the other detractors really want to see this campaign fail because it’s coming from a retailer whose policies you don’t approve of? Do us all a favor – try to get over it. Try to get over your disappointment with me. Try to get over your disappointment with Walmart. Try to get past your issues with the messenger, and take another look at the message…
A quarter trillion dollar commitment to American made products. 250,000 new jobs.
Interesting news from the world of sports media that has nothing to do with the Olympics, from Awful Announcing:
There were a lot of surprises coming out of the NFL’s announcement that CBS had picked up half of the package for Thursday Night Football. That Jim Nantz and Phil Simms are suddenly, primarily moved to a primetime package without as much Sunday work. That CBS won it at all, even though you would argue NBC and Fox needed the primetime ratings boost, especially on Thursdays.
The biggest one, and the most pleasant one, to me is the return of Saturday NFL games. Though NFL Network and, two seasons ago, ESPN have occasionally played on Saturday in recent years, and the league had to play on Saturday due to Christmas a couple of years ago, the NFL has been largely dormant on Saturdays since the early 00s. That’s a shame, in my opinion.
For many, many years, after the end of college football season, the NFL would sort of take its place on Saturdays in December. It would usually amount to an early afternoon game and a late afternoon game on both the regular AFC or NFC networks. Towards the end of the arrangement, ESPN was able to get in with some games, too.
Once the new agreement in 2005 came about, the NFL has mostly been without Saturday NFL games, save for the occasional NFL Network or ESPN game. One of the more famous Saturday night games happened in 2007. The New England Patriots completed their 17-0 season over their future Super Bowl usupers, the New York Giants. …
It’s good to see that as part of this new deal, we’ll see a Saturday Week 16 doubleheader on NFL Network. Even if it’s a 4:30/8 p.m. ET-style doubleheader, it’ll be a return to a good thing the league had going for quite sometime. It may be a silly thing to feel nostalgic about, but I’m weirdly happy to see it back.
This is a big win for CBS, which already is the most watched TV network, though Fox is number one so far this season among adults 18–49, thanks to Super Bowl XLVIII. In the most recent sweeps, in November, NBC was number one largely because of Sunday Night Football. Thursday night games may not have the ratings Sunday night games have, but you can bet they’ll be up near the top of the fall 2014 ratings.
Some commentators wanted NBC or Fox to win the contract for their cable sports channels. That ignores the fact that millions of Americans still get nothing but over-the-air TV, and the amount of live sports online (at least, sports people would actually want to watch) is very limited. (Fox had Super Bowl XLVIII online, but only if you were a subscriber to the right cable operator, and I believe that included no one in Wisconsin. Last year, though, CBS had Super Bowl XLVII online for anyone online.)
An immensely talented newspaper editor wrote this about retiring Sen. Dale Schultz (R–Richland Center).
More of this is needed in the news media — not (only) because of the writer, but because the news media needs more people who refuse to worship politicians and uncritically report what they say, whether the politician’s name is followed by a D or an R, or belongs to no party. Politicians are about themselves first and foremost, and that fact alone should make the media, and more importantly voters, critically appraise everything a politician says starting at “hello.”
Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of Facebook. That prompted founder Mark Zuckerberg to pause and pontificate:
I remember getting pizza with my friends one night in college shortly after opening Facebook. I told them I was excited to help connect our school community, but one day someone needed to connect the whole world.
I always thought this was important — giving people the power to share and stay connected, empowering people to build their own communities themselves.
When I reflect on the last 10 years, one question I ask myself is: why were we the ones to build this? We were just students. We had way fewer resources than big companies. If they had focused on this problem, they could have done it.
The only answer I can think of is: we just cared more.
While some doubted that connecting the world was actually important, we were building. While others doubted that this would be sustainable, you were forming lasting connections.
We just cared more about connecting the world than anyone else. And we still do today.
That’s why I’m even more excited about the next ten years than the last. The first ten years were about bootstrapping this network. Now we have the resources to help people across the world solve even bigger and more important problems.
Today, only one-third of the world’s population has access to the internet. In the next decade, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to connect the other two-thirds.
Today, social networks are mostly about sharing moments. In the next decade, they’ll also help you answer questions and solve complex problems.
But Facebook already answers questions and solves complex problems, such as the supposedly secret recipe for Red Lobster cheese/garlic biscuits, what Star Wars character you are (in my case, Darth Vader, but I suspected that already) and what career you should really have (in my case, astronaut).
I’ve been on Facebook shortly since this blog started, largely because it was suggested that being part of what would be the world’s third largest country if Facebook was a country would be a good idea for networking. As of yesterday I have 443 Facebook Friends, some of whom are actual friends of mine.
As part of the Internet, Facebook at its least objectionable is entertainment. It can be informative, though as with anything “facts” on Facebook require a degree of caveat emptor. (I think I just used a Latin phrase as an English noun.) Facebook specifically and social media generally have also been avenues for cyberbullying, though that’s the fault of the bully, not his or her tools.
Less serious, though annoying, is Facebook users’ ability to generate offense in others, because of something you say or do (for instance, pass on a message that offends someone else’s views), or don’t say or do (for instance, fail to pass on a religious message). Again, that’s not really the fault of Facebook; it’s the fault of its users for an exaggerated sense of offense, an intolerance of views that aren’t theirs, and an inability or unwillingness to argue differing viewpoints.
Because I am allergic to hype, I think Zuckerberg overstates the impact of his creation. Facebook is a way to connect with people, including those you don’t actually physically meet, but it’s sort of like an electronic bulletin board viewable by invitation. Facebook has helped this blog reach a wider audience, though it probably also has contributed to some of my Friends deFriending themselves. (Friends can be friends, and friends can be Friends, but if you deFriend someone, were you really ever their friend?) I’d call it a faster method of communication (similar to email) than telephone calls, letters or face-to-face conversation, but the term “communication” is supposed to be between at least two people, and tbat obviously don’t always happen.
Last week, I read a blog that suggested that people need to stop telling lies on Facebook. (To which I replied: Note to self: Take my three Super Bowl wins off my wall.) By “lying” she meant not telling the truth, exactly, but posts that depict our lives as fault-free and idyllic, with exotic vacations and children who excel in everything they do.
I decided against sharing her blog because in finding one fault of social media, she committed a double-faceted fault of her own — excessive sharing. Reading her blog, I learned more than I ever wanted to know about how she discusses human biology with her children, not to mention additional details of her life she probably should have kept to herself. Excessive sharing can mean not just bragging about how great your life is, but moaning about how bad your life is.
Excessive sharing is really not the fault of Facebook specifically or social media generally. Tools are almost never at fault for the faults of the user. Social media makes sharing easier to a wider audience. And of course on the Internet, nothing really goes away permanently (except, apparently, the late Marketplace Magazine’s late online presence.) Excessive sharing probably is the result of some people’s need for validation from others, an excessive regard for others’ opinions of yourself.
An example that things you posted can come back to haunt you (and I certainly hope the aforementioned bloggers’ children never read that particular blog) comes from the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web Today (which I read before Facebook existed):
Homer Nods
The concluding item in our July 17, 2008, column referred to an article in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Va., by an author with an unusual first name. We assumed the author was male; this past weekend she wrote to inform us we assumed incorrectly. We’ve corrected the item’s pronouns.
The author of that article added: “This is something I wrote when I was 17, yet when employers search for me, this negative feedback is one of the first things they see.” We sympathize, so we’ve removed her name from the old column.
When applying for jobs, the one place you do not want to call you back inevitably will. …
Of all the interesting, vibrant-looking places in my area that I could have worked, this was definitely my last choice. But the only other places I had wanted to work told me it would be a few weeks or months, and I had to have something ASAP so that I could pay the rent. …
First of all, some of my co-workers whom I met later are not exactly savory. They are much older than me and don’t seem to respect me at all, even though I am doing my best to comply with their every wish and to be the best employee I can be. The management also demands that I remove my lip rings while working–which is ridiculous considering how many people with piercings I serve every day. This makes things a bit difficult due to the fact that I don’t have the extra money right now to go out and buy spacers to put in the holes while I’m at work.
The one fellow employee that I really liked has crumpled under the awful pressure and quit, and I am being paid minimum wage–a fact I did not learn until the first paycheck came out.
But what makes the situation really unbearable is not the employees at Subway or even the stupid rules and pay, but the fact that I am barely getting any hours at this terrible job. At places like this, a worker is just a commodity, serving the functions of the business–not a person with needs that should be met. Six hours a week is not exactly going to cut it for someone who asked for more than 40 hours and has rent and bills to pay. …
To top it all off, the fast-food industry is wasteful and goes against even the most basic environmentalist practices. Mishandled food or food that can’t be served is thrown away, not saved to be taken home by the workers. Each sub is wrapped in paper and then placed into a small plastic bag–basically the equivalent of a grocery store giving customers one bag for each grocery. Even the apples we sell come sliced and packaged in plastic, although they would be perfectly sellable without any of that. In short, it is all about the profit and not about the overall good of society.
So what can I do about all of this? Well, apart from complaining in my column and trying to get another job as soon as possible, not much. I just have to keep going to work and hoping for the best. And maybe, some day, I will start my own restaurant, just to combat all the evil that I see in the fast-food industry.
The writer complains that “This is something I wrote when I was 17, yet when employers search for me, this negative feedback is one of the first things they see,” without apparently noticing that the original source still has her name on it. And doing a one-page Google search, guess what comes up? Yes, the original piece. Plus her piece with comments (in red) picking apart her 17-year-old thoughts like a knife through steak.
There is a lesson here, and it’s not just about excessive sharing. Post something online — a Twitter thought of 160 or fewer characters, a Facebook post or reply, or a blog post — and you had better be ready to justify it, or at least explain it, potentially years later. (Just like print, in which, as a former boss of mine said, you can’t unring a bell.) The intemperate rant of the aforementioned writer apparently has resulted in “negative feedback” for potential employers, which is no one’s fault but her own. (One wonders how long it took her to figure out that potential future employers might see a potential employee’s blasting her present employer as foreshadowing.) Is that unfair? Life is unfair, and it is reasonable to ask if the writer of such a snotty screed was merely having a bad day, or is really that self-centered and self-impressed (and thus a poor hiring choice) every day. The First Amendment guarantees the right of self-expression, not immunity from the consequences of self-expression.
(For those who care: I loathe people who devise arguments merely to be argumentative — for instance, a certain Northeast Wisconsin sportswriter who claimed throughout the mid- and late 1990s that the Packers weren’t very good, while they were on the way to back-to-back Super Bowls. I therefore resolved to not do that, and for my entire opinionmongering career, I have always written what I believed and believed what I wrote at that particular time, though I can change my mind.)
Facebook is also a mirror, for better or worse. Anytime you give people the ability to communicate faster, you give people the ability to speak (or write) before thinking. This blog requires me to think about what I want to say, and before publishing revise and edit how I say what I want to say.
The Internet did not change, and will not change, human nature. People make the right and wrong decision(s) every day. Yes, you can hit Send and then edit or delete comments, but in the worst case that can be like apologizing for offending someone — the apology has less impact than what you did that prompted the need for the apology. Hit Send, and it’s difficult to get an intemperate slam or a cutting remark back.
Facebook supposedly has a personalized video for its users made up of images from a user’s wall. Showing where I sit in the Facebook universe even before I wrote this, I have received no video as of this posting, although Facebook did put together this photo from my wall:
According to this, I’m still in the UW Band (hence the four hatted Bucky photos), I like the Packers (but you knew that), and I eat (and you knew that too). The interesting thing is that I didn’t post any of these photos; other people posted them on my wall.
I missed this, but a friend of mine heard this from WTMJ radio’s Jeff Wagner Tuesday:
Shortly before noon today, I received an email from Summerfest announcing that 1980s hair metal band Motley Crue would be performing at Summerfest on July 4th. It’s being billed as their Farewell Tour.
At the time, my friend and colleague Michelle Richards was in the studio preparing to read the noon news. When she learned that Motley Crue was coming, her first response was: “Are they still alive?”
Since the announcement was embargoed until 3 p.m., I couldn’t share the news that this particular band was on the way. I did however share Michelle’s comment – which led to a flood of emails from listeners speculating on what band could be coming that could be described as “Are they still alive”?
Some suggestions made me nostalgic (“Crosby, Stills and Nash”) and some just made me feel old. On the other hand, a couple of bands that were suggested really aren’t still alive.
Anyway, if you can’t get enough of “Smoking in the Boy’s Room”, or you just want to see the former Mr. Pamela Anderson in person, you know where to be on July 4th.
First: Wagner sort of misspelled the band’s name — the correct spelling is “Mötley Crüe” with the diaeresis, or umlaut, over the O and U, similar to Blue Öyster Cult. As for that part about a “Farewell Tour,” some bands have had more than one farewell tour, which brings to mind the Dan Hicks song, “How Can I Miss You If You Won’t Go Away.”
This makes one think of the other umlaut-user, Blue Öyster Cult, as well. David Crosby isn’t dead, though he’s on his second liver. Nor is Neil Young, though whether he’s part of CSN (which I assume would be CSNY) apparently depends on the day.
Crüe bassist Nikki Sixx did indeed have a near-death experience:
In a post on his Facebook.com page on Sunday (23Dec12), he writes, “25 years ago today I had two almost-fatal drug overdoses that changed my life forever. I can’t even see myself these days as that kid who was running head strong into the abyss, but I know he taught me how to live when he finally decided to do it for himself. I would of (sic) never seen the birth of my four beautiful children and had such a wonderful life (even with its adversity) if I had not kicked drugs.
“I can’t say it loud enough, if your (sic) into them or considering doing them: drugs don’t work. The downside is never pretty.
“I am extremely grateful to be able to look back over these last 25 years and have all the memories that would of (sic) otherwise gone down up flames… Life really is a crazy and fun journey, isn’t it? Have a great holiday season wherever you are. Live in the moment.”
Sixx (born Frank Carlton Serafino Feranna Jr.) can now be heard on classic rock radio stations, as can Alice Cooper (born Vincent Damon Furnier) , who will be joining the Crüe on Independence Day and knows something about near-death experiences too.
Readers of my Presty the DJ posts know that many rock acts ascended to Rock and Roll Heaven earlier than they should have, beginning with an event whose anniversary is next week:
Remember during Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions when Slick Willie’s defenders said what happened in the Clintons’ marriage was private?
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) channels his inner social conservative, as reported by NewsBusters:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made quite a strong statement Sunday about the so-called “Republican War on Women” and the double standards by which the sexual escapades of both Parties are reported by the media.
Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Paul said, “One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office. And I think really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this” …
[Host David] Gregory then read a snippet of a Vogue magazine piece referring to Paul’s wife Kelly claiming that Bill Clinton’s escapades with Monica Lewinsky should complicate his return to the White House even as a spouse. Gregory asked his guest if such issues were fair game if Hillary runs in 2016:
PAUL: You know, I mean the Democrats, one of their big issues is they’ve concocted and said Republicans are committing a War on Women. One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office. And I think really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this. He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that. And that is predatory behavior, and it should be, it should be something we shouldn’t want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office.
This isn’t having an affair. I mean, this isn’t me saying he’s, “Oh, he’s had an affair. We shouldn’t talk to him.” Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office? I mean, really. And then they have the gall to stand up and say Republicans are having a War on Women? So, yes, I think it’s a factor. Now, it’s not Hillary’s fault.
GREGORY: And, but it should be an issue…
PAUL: But it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton in history.
GREGORY: Right, but is it something Hillary Clinton should be judged on if she were a candidate in 2016?
PAUL: No, I’m not saying that. This is with regard to the Clintons, and sometimes it’s hard to separate one from the other. But I would say that with regard to his place in history, that it certainly is a discussion, and I think in my state, you know, people tend to sort of frown upon that. We wouldn’t be, you know, if there were someone in my community who did that, they would be socially, we would disassociate from somebody who would take advantage of a young woman in the workplace.
One wonders how Bill Clinton would have felt if someone with whom Chelsea had had an internship had had the same kind of relationship Bill Clinton had with intern Monica Lewinsky. One also wonders if Hillary Clinton would have helped cover it up in a similar situation, as she did by blithely calling the accusations the work of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
That demonstrates a lack of character on Bill Clinton’s part. And Hillary’s. And their supporters, who appear ready to excuse anything the Clintons do because of their stand on abortion rights.
Speaking of Slick Willie, what is he up to these days? Feeling dissed, reports ReaganCoalition.com:
It might have something to do with being impeached and letting an intern service him underneath his desk, but Bill Clinton believes he gets less respect than Ronald Reagan — and he isn’t happy about it. The surprising admission comes from a new piece in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, which quotes writer Amy Chozick after she spoke to sources close to the former President.
“People close to Bill Clinton have told me repeatedly that it irks them that Democrats don’t talk about the dignified, slimmed-down, silver-haired former president with the same reverence Republicans give Ronald Reagan,” wrote Chozick. The Washington Examiner also reported that Clinton “is aware that his legacy could be impacted by his wife, and also that he hasn’t been cheerleading her potential run, according to insiders.”
I also wrote some time ago about a Star Trek series that bridges what’s known as The Original Series and “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”
I am not the first person to think of doing my own “Star Trek,” though the concept belongs to Paramount Pictures. Facebook has “Star Trek: New Voyages,” which formerly was known as “Phase II,” which was sort of the original version of what became the first Star Trek movie; “Official Star Trek Continues“; and “Star Trek: Renegades,” the latter of which apparently has cast members from two of the TV series.
Actually, what you’re about to read would fit into “Star Trek: Other,” though that would be a terrible title. (“Space … the other final frontier …”) There are supposed to be 80 or so years between the first and second Star Treks, and it would be interesting to explore (get it?) what happened in between.
That would require creating a captain who stands out from the other five, of course, in keeping with the traditions of the series. They’ve had an Iowan, they’ve had a Frenchman with a British accent, they’ve had a black man, they’ve had a woman, and they’ve had whatever the first captain of the first Enterprise was supposed to be. They’ve never had (at least on TV) a captain who maybe is a doesn’t-play-well-with-others type, someone who is obviously talented and capable of leading people, but has a cynical and not-entirely-respectful attitude toward his superiors and so is sent away in a starship so they can be rid of him. Maybe he (or she) is the Starfleet Academy graduate voted Most Likely to Lead a Rebellion, or Most Likely to Command a Pirate Ship.
None of the Star Treks have had a Scandinavian captain. (Nor have any of them had a non-human captain, and that seems unlikely to happen given that readers and viewers naturally gravitate toward the lead character). The Vikings did a fair amount of exploring (though arguably more in the Klingon style of exploring), so Star Trek is overdue for a Scandinavian captain. As well as a tall captain, someone tall enough to look Klingons in the eye — the tallest actor to play a captain appears to be Avery Brooks, of “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine,” who is 6-foot-1. (For comparison, William Shatner is allegedly 5–10, as is Patrick Stewart, while Kate Mulgrew is 5–5 and Scott Bakula is 6 feet tall. The only way Shatner is 5–10 is if he’s hung upside down from his feet overnight, or if you’re measuring from the top of his, uh, hair.)
I’ve written before that as far as I’m concerned my template for who a Star Trek captain should be is James T. Kirk. As portrayed by Shatner, Kirk is the captain whose crew would follow him down a black hole without hesitation.
One thing that prompts “Star Trek: Other” is what I believe is a major flaw in most of Star Trek, something that stood out most in “The Next Generation.” Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry fell into the utopian trap of believing that not only would things change in the future, but human nature would change. The characters of Star Trek are idealized people (not surprising given that they are staffing the flagship of their fleet), when the reality is that we flawed humans make mistakes, have always made mistakes, and will always make mistakes, some even with disastrous consequences. We have to consciously choose to do the right thing, every time we have a choice. That ability to make choices not only makes us human; it gives us reasons to get up in the morning.
That is demonstrated by the role of commerce and money in the series, particularly from “The Next Generation” onward. The first series presents such business people as Harcourt Fenton Mudd and Cyrano Jones as shady at best; the second invents a race fed by avarice, the Ferengi. An episode at the end of TNG’s first season includes the grand news that by then we have eliminated need. I won’t be around to see the 24th century, but I think that prediction won’t come true.
Dr. McCoy was portrayed in the first series as a cynic, except that he wasn’t; he was a skeptic, someone who wouldn’t accept the first opinion as settled. That would be a wonderful thing to imagine in a starship captain, particularly when directed not at his own crew, for whom he is responsible, but for those above him. The first book in the Star Trek: New Frontier series has its captain make a speech to his crew in which he emphasizes that their first loyalty should be to each other, not to Starfleet or the Federation. That makes sense because starships are supposed to be so far out in space that a call for help isn’t going to get answered until it’s too late. Perhaps our captain could so dislike Starfleet that he considers resigning, but is kept where he is out of his loyalty to and sense of responsibility for his crew.
An appropriate ship for this series might be, say, the U.S.S. Independence …
… which this is not. Real Trek geeks read a book called the Star Fleet Technical Manual (available in PDF in original and revised versions, in addition to blueprints), which included this depiction of a “dreadnaught,” which obviously has one more engine than the Enterprise and, one assumes, higher maximum speed, as does …
… an improved version from another website, and …
… the Starcruiser, from a later book for Trekkies. (The part that sticks up from the primary hull — on the left for non-Trekkers — is the weapons bridge, from where the photon torpedoes and megaphasers are fired.
Why would Starfleet give its biggest, baddest starship to a rebellious inexperienced captain? The answer is a story line.
As long as I am creating this series, this description sounds right for the captain, which you have, yes, read before:
People like you are generally quick decision makers, organized and efficient. Your personality is charismatic, friendly and energetic, but you take life seriously and can be a little opinionated on your own turf. You’re extremely outspoken when you feel you’re in the right. You have great trouble dealing with people who are dishonest and/or disorderly.
You’re highly productive, realistic and sensible. Somewhat of a traditionalist, you’re distrustful of new and untested ideas, and you’re more than a little blunt telling others how you feel about them, or about whatever other faults you see. When you give a compliment, however, you mean it.
Your primary goal in life is doing the right thing, and being in charge. Your reward is to be appreciated by others and have your opinion respected. You also enjoy having others willingly follow your orders.
If you clicked on the previous link, you’d find out that Myers-Briggs ESTJs are supposedly most like TNG’s Commander Riker. And as it happens, Jonathan Frakes is 6-4.
Riker brings up something missing from the Star Treks: family. You could count on one hand the number of married couples in all five Star Trek series, with fingers left over for the number of children: two. (Those would be Commander Sisko’s son in DS9, and TNG’s Dr. Crusher’s son, Wesley, who to some fans is the Star Trek equivalent of Jar Jar Binks.) Given the fact that people in the early 21st century live to their 80s, it seems unlikely that, for instance, Captain Kirk, who was the youngest captain in Starfleet when he took command of the Enterprise, wouldn’t have living parents, unless they were killed in a deep space accident. (Kirk did have a brother, who looked suspiciously like William Shatner with a mustache, but he died in the last episode of the first season.) Spock’s parents appeared a few times, as did, in an excellent episode of TNG, Riker’s father. So did TNG’s Deanna Troi’s mother, played by Majel Barrett Roddenberry. (Yes, wife of the only Roddenberry you’ve ever heard of.) Picard, the Frenchman with a British accent, had a brother, played by German actor Jeremy Kemp, in one episode.
Obviously when you’re on a five-year mission you won’t be home for Christmas, other than in your dreams. But you’d think there would be some contact, whether by the 24th century equivalent of email or running into a relative going a different direction at a starbase.
Another missing element is a character of advanced (compared with the rest of the cast) age. The original series’ Dr. McCoy was supposed to be 45, about the same age as Mr. Scott, both of whom 10 years older than Captain Kirk. Imagine, instead, a very young crew led by a young captain who picks the brain of his oldest officer — say, his chief engineer, who of course is required to be Scottish — on how to deal with his youthful crew.
(Two other things you don’t see are clutter or even dirt on a Star Trek ship. That’s how you know it’s fiction, though clutter would quickly rearrange itself after a Klingon disruptor hit upon your ship.)
One potential aspect of a new Star Trek captain came to mind when I wrote about the similarities of one of my two original-series favorite episodes, “Balance of Terror,” and its inspiration, the World War II movie “The Enemy Below.”
The captains of the former’s Starfleet and Romulan ships and the latter’s destroyer and German U-boat have a lot in common because they’re both captains. So it might be an interesting twist for our captain to have a regular rival on the other side, and that they have a history that predates the series. (The original Star Trek tried to do that with the Klingon captain in “The Trouble with Tribbles,” but actor William Campbell wasn’t available for the next Klingon episode.)
That is about as far as I’ve gotten. You can’t have Star Trek based only on its captain, of course. My lack of imagination made me consider one-appearance characters of early episodes, such as the first pilot’s navigator, Lt. Tyler …
… who inconveniently died in the second pilot, then was killed again in “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
Of course, with CGI you’re not necessarily limited to characters that look like humans with prosthetics. Viewers of the animated Star Trek might remember three-legged Arex and M’Ress …
… and, in an alternative universe, Kirk’s science officer and friend, Thelin the Andorian:
Successful TV series regardless of genre require two ingredients — compelling characters and compelling stories. Some of the aforementioned Star Trek remakes featured stories that didn’t get filmed for some reason. David Gerrold, who wrote the original series’ funniest episode, “The Trouble with Tribbles,” submitted five ideas to Star Trek’s producers. One involved a time-travel experiment that went wrong to where a person was stretched across portions of a second of time; Gerrold’s idea was to duplicate the red-yellow-bloe effect from Natalie Wood’s dance scene in “West Side Story.” (Today’s special effects could do much more, of course.) The other was an episode where the Enterprise came upon a huge ship inside which a multigenerational battle was being fought between halves of the ship, neither side of which was able to defeat the other.
I’m not sure if a better Star Trek is out there, but if it isn’t, it’s not from lack of trying by would-be Gene Roddenberrys.
On Sunday, CBS will carry the AFC championship between New England and Denver, and Fox will carry the NFC Championship between San Francisco and Seattle.
Each network will use its top NFL announcing pair — CBS’ Jim Nantz and Phil Simms, followed by Fox’s Joe Buck and Troy Aikman, who will also announce Super Bowl XLVIII.
This Saturday you couldn’t help but notice the diametrically opposed CBS and Fox announcing teams for the NFL Divisional Playoffs. In the early game, Fox rewarded the team of rookie play by play man Kevin Burkhardt and John Lynch with their first playoff assignment. In the late game, Hall of Famer Dan Dierdorf announced his last game alongside Greg Gumbel for the eighth consecutive year. Dierdorf had called a playoff game for CBS every year since joining the network for the 1999 season and Gumbel has been either the #1 or #2 announcer at the network save for two seasons when he hosted The NFL Today.
Only one of the broadcast teams were there based on merit – the Fox duo of Burkhardt and Lynch. The pair received positive reviews for their work on Fox throughout the season and the network has made it known their second playoff assignment is no longer set in stone as it had been for several years. Last year Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick replaced Kenny Albert, Daryl Johnston, and Tony Siragusa for the Divisional Round game. This year it was Burkhardt and Lynch. Fox has shown they are willing to give deserving announcers a chance on the big stage instead of depending solely on entrenched boardroom hierarchy. …
Announcing jobs in sports is one of the few professions in society that isn’t continually based on merit. Imagine if your productivity or quality of work dropped at your day job. You would be demoted or even fired if your work suffered a great deal. What about the sports that these networks cover? The Super Bowl and World Series aren’t contested between the same two teams every year, so why should networks assign the same announcers week after week, year after year to their biggest sporting events? Fans should ask themselves – is it really the birthright of Jim Nantz, Phil Simms, Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, Al Michaels, Bob Costas, Chris Berman and others to be in their positions as lifetime appointments? Instead of a merit based system, once announcers climb the ladder to the top they stay there until they decide to walk away no matter how much criticism or praise their work may receive.
All over the sports world are examples of deserving announcers being held back from great opportunities because of the holiness of the status quo. In fact, there’s almost too many to list in this space. It’s the central reason why Gus Johnson left CBS for Fox Sports – he couldn’t break the March Madness glass ceiling that was Jim Nantz. How many years has Trey Wingo deserved to be the lead studio anchor for ESPN’s NFL coverage for his excellent work? It’s a subjective business, but consider how many younger announcers have been passed over by multiple networks that have decided to stick with older announcers who are bigger names, but well past their prime.
For multiple seasons now, media analysts and fans alike have been calling for Ian Eagle and Dan Fouts to receive a promotion from CBS, much like Fox gave Kevin Burkhardt and John Lynch. Eagle and Fouts have proven to be the best NFL announcing team at CBS over the past few seasons. In a merit based system, they should be the ones who deserve an opportunity to call the AFC Championship Game this weekend. They are informative, entertaining, and have great chemistry together. However, Eagle and Fouts will never sniff that kind of opportunity as long as Nantz and Simms have working vocal cords, let alone a chance to move to #2. CBS has refused to budge from their predetermined hierarchy, no matter how deserving younger and yes, better, announcers may be. …
Imagine how much different it would be if announcing assignments were based solely on merit and not longevity or name recognition. What if networks rotated who got to call the Super Bowl or host the Olympics? We got a window into that realm with Fox’s NFL Playoffs assignments this weekend and the universe shockingly did not collapse on itself. In fact, it turned out to be a victory for everyone involved. Fans were given a higher quality broadcast for Saints-Seahawks and Fox now has a legitimate top NFL announcing team in Burkhardt and Lynch. If more announcers were given more opportunities across sports, it would do wonders in giving a new, fresh perspective to broadcasts and build new stars across the industry. And isn’t that more beneficial than seeing the same ol’ same ol’ year after year?
There are a lot of things, other than their failure to employ me (and other greatchoices), that might mystify the sports viewer about the networks. The reason Fox uses Buck and CBS uses Nantz is that that’s what their contracts specify. Buck is Fox’s number one NFL and baseball announcer, and Nantz is CBS’ number one NFL, college basketball and golf announcer. Those decisions are based on business considerations, namely ad revenue and ratings.
But when you’re on the top, you’re a target. Bleacher Report selects its own bad Super Bowl announcers …
I have been trying to figure out how Aikman manages to use more words than any other sportscaster in the history of broadcast to say so little. Aikman will take five minutes to tell you about a 20-second play.
I don’t think the man has ever heard a cliche he didn’t like and use. And use. And use.
I think Aikman has some great insight. I just don’t have 45 minutes to wade through the wordage to figure out what it is. The game is going on and Troy’s just rambling on and on. …
Joe Buck
You know, there are some people who really like Buck’s forced enthusiasm but listening to him is like listening to a drunk guy try to convince you that he’s REALLY happy to be at the party his wife dragged him to.
Of course, there are large stretches of time when he’s not even faking it. He just sounds like he’s watching some game. You know, whatever, just some game.
Maybe that cuts it in baseball, where they play for 18 hours and the pace is slow but constant. In the NFL where the stop and start of a play, the rhythm of a game is violent and sudden? You need someone who sounds like they understand that every play is huge.
Buck calls a major play the same way he calls a minor play. ‘Oh, did that happen? A 70-yard catch? That’s interesting, first and goal.’
… which you may notice are three of Sunday’s announcers, and three of the four announcers who worked last year’s Super Bowl or will work this year’s Super Bowl.
There is a familiarity-breeds-contempt aspect to this. NBC’s Curt Gowdy, who announced seven of the first 13 Super Bowls, was also NBC’s lead baseball and college basketball announcer for most of that time. (Gowdy therefore also did 12 consecutive Rose Bowls on NBC, and did every Olympics on NBC and ABC from 1964 to 1984. He worked for ABC before he moved to NBC, yet still hosted ABC’s “The American Sportsman.) The latter stages of Gowdy’s career coincided with the rise of newspaper TV critics, and the latter weren’t kind to Gowdy toward the end of his career. (Gowdy, however, was in 22 halls of fame, and has a state park and post office in Wyoming named for him. Take that, Gary Deeb.)
Ratings may explain why some football fans prefer announcers other than the networks’ top announcers. Sports Illustrated’s Paul Zimmerman complained for decades that the top NFL announcer teams weren’t sufficiently focused on the actual game — line play and defensive schemes, for instance. The reason, of course, is that playoff games and specifically the Super Bowl and conference championship games attract more casual viewers than regular-season games. The announcers down the pecking order, who are only contract employees of the networks for the length of the NFL season, stick to the game because that’s their audience.
Readers know that I believe NFL viewers should have the right to decide on more than one set of announcers they want to listen to during the game. ESPN’s final NCAA football Bowl Championship Series game allowed viewers to choose between Auburn’s and Florida State’s announcers, in addition to ESPN’s duo. CBS did that during its NFL coverage in the 1950s and 1960s without the technology that exists today. For, say, a Bears-Packers game, if you were a Packer fan in Madison or Eau Claire (because the NFL blacked out home games in home markets), Ray Scott and Tony Canadeo delivered the game to you, while in Illinois, Red Grange and George Connor announced the game. Same video, but different audio.
The networks weren’t always locked in to announcers by ranking. Jack Buck was never CBS’ number one NFL announcer, but got to announce Super Bowl IV, won by his future partner, Hank Stram.
NBC used announcers of the participating teams in the World Series through 1976. The 1965 World Series featured Scott, who had worked for CBS, along with Vin Scully, who would later work for both CBS and NBC.
Because of that, baseball viewers got to hear the work of announcers they’d never otherwise get to hear, for better or sometimes worse:
Now, the only way you hear a local announcer nationally is if he’s also employed by the network:
And since, in this case, Nantz and Buck are full-time employees of CBS and Fox, respectively (as is NBC’s Al Michaels and ESPN’s Mike Tirico), they’re all you get, like it or not.
It seems that anyone who has something other than no TV or mere over-the-air TV gets to watch this take place — in this case, from the website Keep the Weather Channel:
DIRECTV DROPPED THE WEATHER CHANNEL
DIRECTV ended negotiations and turned off The Weather Channel.
There are 3 Ways you can take Action to:
Tell DIRECTV there is no substitute for 30+ years of experience and more than 220 meteorologists.
Tell DIRECTV there is no substitute for accurate, real-time forecasts that local communities count on to save lives.
Tell DIRECTV they won’t deny you access to The Weather Channel: You’re switching.
This is because, as you may have been able to discern (pardon the sarcasm), DirecTV is no longer carrying The Weather Channel due to yet another dispute over how much DirecTV should pay The Weather Channel to carry The Weather Channel — fees that, as with nearly every other cable channel, are passed on to DirecTV’s customers.
If the above isn’t blunt enough for your taste, elsewhere on this home page are the dire words “If you’re a DirecTV customer, you’ve lost your access to The Weather Channel’s life-saving coverage.” They’ve even got heavy-hitter “Friends” you can see here, and you can “Take the Switch Pledge” and “Don’t let DirecTV control the weather.”
If this seems familiar, it should. Last summer, Time Warner Cable and Journal Communications had a dispute that deprived Time Warner’s customers of watching Packers preseason games. I think every TV station owner in the Green Bay market besides Journal (which owns WGBA-TV) has had a carriage dispute, shown by crawls on the bottom that implore viewers to call an 800 number or go online somewhere to register your umbrage. It seems these days as though every TV station or cable channel owner and every cable or satellite provider are engaged in a pitched battle against each other over carriage fees, with the former’s viewers and the latter’s customers the losers, of course.
Unlike most of the other disputes, however, DirecTV didn’t start its own We’re-Right-They’re-Wrong website. Instead, BusinessWeek reports:
Where do you check the weather: phone or TV? That’s the essence of the fight between DirecTV (DTV) and Weather Channel, which disappeared early today for 20 million subscribers of the satellite broadcaster. The companies have been waging a public battle over how much DirecTV will pay for the channel.
DirecTV wanted to cut the fees it pays for weather programming by “more than 20 percent,” Weather Channel’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer David Kenny says. “I think it’s done,” he says of the talks. “There’s never been an earnest negotiation. They have taken a very arbitrary stance that they don’t need the Weather Channel on DirecTV.”
The satellite broadcaster sees weather as a Web function—the average app-equipped smartphone can tell you whether you’ll need an umbrella quicker and more easily than a television can. DirecTV also argues that Weather Channel has replaced roughly 40 percent of its live forecast broadcasting with reality TV-style programming such as Deadliest Space Weather, Coast Guard Alaska, Prospectors, and Hurricane Hunters. “Consumers understand there are now a variety of other ways to get weather coverage, free of reality show clutter, and that the Weather Channel does not have an exclusive on weather coverage–the weather belongs to everyone,” Dan York, DirecTV’s chief content officer, said in a statement. …
The satellite broadcaster has replaced the channel with weather from WeatherNation TV, a Colorado-based weather forecaster launched in 2010 by Dish Network (DISH) amid its own carriage-fee dispute with Weather Channel. That programming is also available for free on Roku’s streaming boxes.
Well, the weather does belong to everyone (unfortunately for Wisconsinites right now), though weather coverage does not. Taxpayers pay for the National Weather Service, so there are alternatives to the Weather Channel. Nearly every TV station with a news department employs degreed and certified meteorologists to forecast and broadcast the local weather, because weather is a proven driver of TV news ratings.
I believe the Weather Channel has hurt its own brand so much that it will some day be studied in college marketing classes. Yes, there have been huge changes with the internet, etc., but airing ridiculous programming and then asking Congress to intervene because they are essential to public safety is laugh out loud ridiculous.
My interest in The Weather Channel started waning during a Memorial Day 2008 tornado outbreak in northeastern Iowa, including the EF5 tornado that flattened Parkersburg, Iowa and killed several people:
This was of keen interest at the time because we were in Wisconsin’s most southwestern county, one of the state’s top counties for tornadoes and, it seemed, in the path of the storms. The three Waterloo/Cedar Rapids/Dubuque stations did excellent wall-to-wall coverage of the storms.
What did The Weather Channel do? Reruns of “Forecast Earth,” their global warming/climate change propaganda series. TWC has abandoned all premise of scientific objectivity to the global warming/climate change/it’s-all-Americans’-fault crowd. For instance:
Similar to the rest of the Algore crowd, TWC has yet to study such inconvenient questions as whether humans drive climate change instead of having some indeterminate influence, if climate change is actually a bad thing, and the global climate change cure is worse than the disease.
The Weather Channel also covers, if that’s what you want to call it, weather with:
“Wake Up with Al,” with NBC-TV’s Al Roker. I like Roker, but Roker is not a meteorologist.
Even their supposed weather coverage strikes one as unscientific. What does the weather have to do with the flu, or allergies? Or, for that matter, green?
(I was going to go on a 10-mile run today, but look at the Fitness Index and the Aches and Pains Index! I better stay home.)
And then there’s the mobile meteorologists, Jim Cantore and Mike Seidel (among others), who TWC flies or drives into the center of bad storms, putting into danger not merely Cantore and Seidel, but all the staffers who have to go with them, as well as others who have to help the crew on scene. (Does it seem spectacularly dumb to send a satellite truck, which has a lot of parts attractive to lightning, into severe weather?) Of course, other TV channels and stations do the same thing, and I assume it will continue until someone is actually killed live on TV while reporting. (Maybe.)
This isn’t weather coverage, it’s weather porn, and it negatively affects The Weather Channel’s credibility. (But I suppose it sells ads.) My kids like “Coast Guard Alaska,” but to pretend that’s weather coverage makes you look dishonest.
The other interesting aspect is that, at least on The Weather Channel’s Facebook page, viewers are fighting back, and not always against DirecTV:
ALERT! The Weather Channel is not telling you the truth. They are also big business about MONEY. DirecTV did not drop the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel dropped DirecTV. I have inside information and I’ve posted some comments on this site to try to help tell the truth. DirecTV has been very professional at dealing with The Weather Channel, but they have not been the same. You can go to this link to read the truth and keep up on the negotiations. They are still in negotiations. I personally know someone who works with Direct TV!!!
Give me CURRENT WEATHER CONDITIONS including my LOCAL weather (as advertised) within the TN/NC Smoky Mountains which is vastly different from the weather conditions of the lower lying nearby towns/cities. I couldn’t possibly care any less about all of those stupid little personality programs that have been added. Who cares about some “Storm Story” about some storm that happened 10 or more years ago. How about TODAY’S weather!?
If any other network starts a 24/7 weather channel, I am there. I am tired of the Weather Channel trying to be the Discovery Channel. I tune to the Weather Channel to see weather, not all the other mindless crap they have on. Come on Weather Channel. Listen to your viewers or you will be big time losers.
You actually were able to find weather forecasts on the weather channel? That’s a feat in and of itself! Not to mention that they aren’t even forecasts – just individuals reading off of teleprompters and computer screens that couldn’t even forecast a sunny day.
Weather channel, you used to be a viable source of information and a legitimate weather news source. You, like all the other cable “news” channels are nothing more than personality driven pablum and reality shows. Fact is, technology has changed. You, like CNN, NBC and FoxNews have become dinosaurs. Plenty of other options on TV, the internet and in our pockets with our phones. I still have your app on my phone and use it along with weather underground and accuweather. Unless, of course you decide that your free app will become a pay app and become another stream of revenue for you and NBC Universal. You admitted yourself that your continuous weather format was antiquated when you decided to incorporate reality shows. Fact is, throw together a few reality shows and rerun them ad nauseum and you have saved a ton of money by not having the expense of live broadcast during slow weather times when, God forbid, no one is in danger. Your drama queen attitude on your website about how much danger DirecTV subscribers are in is pathetic and nauseating and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Urging people to go to their representatives and demand the weather channel back. Unbelievable. Do us all a favor and say hello to the T-Rex on your way out.
These are all business disputes. The fine print in all the agreements with satellite and cable providers specifies that your provider has the right to discontinue carriage of channels at any time, whether or not you like those channels, and regardless of whose fault it is — whether DirecTV is offering too little or The Weather Channel is asking too much.
There is a certain whistling-past-the-graveyard aspect to this too, on both sides. If I want to know our weather, why should I have to wait until “Local on the 8s”? The Internet, whether accessed on computer or smartphone, gets you the information you want when you want it, while allowing you to avoid the propaganda from the Church of Algore, in TWC’s case. The increasing amount of content available online (including a lot of TWC programming) means you don’t have to wait until the regularly scheduled viewing of “Prospectors” to watch.
The Weather Channel isn’t the only place to get weather information. DirecTV isn’t the only source for TV. Consumer choice is at the heart of free enterprise.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 