With a seeming end to the writer’s strike being imminent, things have played out more or less how I thought they would.  Two months ago I said in the last episode of Dymersion Video that the studios would eventually force themselves to cough up a decent deal in face of falling ratings, but that the writers would not get everything they wanted.

And so it seems that this is the case.  This source is perhaps a little out-of-date on an actual time basis, but I don’t think it’d be too out of date on a fact basis.  As you can see, by the end of 2007, NBC viewership dropped 11%, CBS 10% and ABC 5%.  I’m going to guess it’s gotten worse as series have stopped airing new episodes after pre-strike episodes have aired.  Remember that around the time that article was written, new episodes of series were either airing their final new episodes, or it didn’t matter anyway, since Christmas was a few days away.

Then Christmas came and went, and we went a whole month without new episodes.  Lost came back on the 31st, but that’s about it.  I’d be interested in seeing if ABC’s ratings have risen any, since judging by the article, they seem to have lost the least, and so probably gained the most by Lost coming back (which has been good so far).   Meanwhile, CBS and NBC are likely struggling.  I’m guessing all the ratings have come back up with the return of some other shows, but are probably not where the execs would like them to be.  It would help immensely if the anchors of these networks could come back.  Heroes on NBC, the CSIs on CBS, would help things a lot.

So, faced with lower ratings, the studios knew they needed to get back to making shows.  So, they were forced to concede more than they wanted, but not as much as the writers wanted.  So is the nature of negotiation; both sides have to give up concessions, or nothing gets done.  The writers seem to be content. anyway, lauding the deal.  It’s only for three years, but I’m hoping the Internet will have truly proved itself by then, in which case, the writers will have firepower at their disposal.

I’m happy that this thing seems set to end.  I know it will be some time before I can see CSI, Without a Trace, 24, and Heroes again, but I’m content in knowing that they’ll be back soon.

Posted by by Michael in Television at 3: 06 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

As I’ve surfed the Internet these past months, I’ve noticed a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding being spread about the switch to DTV. It’s really a shame, since the switch is government-ordered, yet they have barely taken the time to inform the public until very recently. So, to hopefully clear a few things up, I’ve decided to explain a few things. I’ll present it in FAQ style:

• What is DTV?
  • DTV stands for Digital Television. There are several kinds of digital television, such as digital cable, but the switchover next year concerns the type that will be broadcast over-the-air. Over-the-air digital television is sent using digital signals rather than the traditional analog signals.
• How will the switchover affect me?
  • That’s just it…it may not. The people who should pay the most attention are those still getting their TV over-the-air. Many people this day in age get their TV via cable or satellite service. They don’t need to worry (well, probably not, see below). Those who need to worry most are the people who are using a big ‘ol antennae on top of their house or rabbit ears connected to their TV.
• Ok, so I’m one of those people. What do I need to do?
  • Well, it depends on when you got your current TV. If it was in the past couple years, you should be set. All TVs in the past couple years were legally required to have digital tuners built in. Check your TV’s manual to see if this is the case. If it does, you’re all set, ready to join the digital revolution. If this is not the case, your manual should notify you. In some cases, you’ll probably know your TV is pretty old.If this is the case, you will need to buy either a new TV, or a digital tuner box. Now, you can probably find a decent TV with a digital tuner, but they are becoming more rare, with the industry focus on HDTVs. You could also buy an HDTV, if you have the money. Otherwise, or if you don’t want to buy a new TV, you will need a digital tuner box. Basically, the box converts the digital signal coming into your antennae into an analog signal before it reaches your television. It’s essentially the external equivalent of what all new TVs have.Need help buying a converter box? This past January, the federal government started offering a coupon program. Go to the government’s DTV website for information on how to sign-up for the program.
• So, will I get HDTV quality with this converter box thing?
  • Not necessarily. If it so happens you have an HDTV and are using it with DTV, that’ll be the case. However, I do believe that most people who have an HDTV will already have HD service through their cable or satellite provider. However, you’ll also be able to pick up DTV signals (with an antennae), and see them in HD. Standard definition televisions will get a better picture, because the DTV signal if all or nothing, with no grey, snowy area in between. However, you will not get HD quality.
• You said earlier if I was on cable, I may need to pay attention. Why?
  • This is a possibility. Cable services are not mandated to go digital like over-the-air broadcasts are. However, some cable companies may take it upon themselves to go digital, in which case you’d probably need a converter box from that company. However, this is something you will need to check with them about. My guess is that most will probably keep their analog services, meaning that you’ll only need your trusty coax cables. Digital cable services are definitely getting more popular, but I don’t think they’ve reached the mainstream yet where cable companies are going to entirely abandon the old basic cable plans. However, don’t take my word for it. They’re the final say on this.

There. I hope I was a little bit helpful on this whole transition thing. If anybody has further questions, feel free to post it, and I’ll find out what answer I can, or redirect you to a more proper channel (no pun intended), if I cannot.

For all the information above, the DTV converter box sign-up, and more, visit http://www.dtv2009.gov

Posted by by Michael in Technology, Television at 9: 21 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

When I tuned in to O’Reilly last night, I caught the tail end of an interview with a guy making the case to O’Reilly that many of our nation’s veterans end up on the street after coming back from war.  O’Reilly seemed to disagree with this idea, telling the guy to call him up if he actually finds anybody “sleeping under a bridge.”  Now, this shocking lack of respect for the troops didn’t phase me then, because I didn’t actually notice the story much.  Since I tuned in toward the end of that segment, it didn’t impact me as much as it would if I’d seen the whole thing.  I was also running on 4 hours of sleep.

Then I watched Keith Olbermann tonight.  He had on a veteran, and a member of a group that tracks, and tries to help, homeless veterans.  I got to see some of the clips of the interview again, and thought it made O’Reilly look read bad, what he said about there not being very many homeless troops.

According to the Department of Veteran Affairs, there are about 200,000 veterans homeless on any given night in this country, or about 1/3 of all homeless veterans.  Now, I understand that in relation to all the veterans in this country, that may not be a lot.  But, consider that this is about 23,000 more people than the amount of soldiers we have in Iraq right now, and 2/3 of what we had at the invasion.  That’s a lot of homeless veterans!

Notice that I gave a direct link to the VA’s website.  There can now be no arguing over sources, since the facts are coming from the horse’s mouth itself.  I know it says 195,000, but I’m guessing the number has been updated since then.  Regardless, it’s close enough for me to make my point.

Come on, O’Reilly.  Even you can’t deny that source.  I’m hoping what might have happened was that he assumed that the figures were specifically for people “sleeping under bridges”.  That’s be reasonable, if that were the case.  But, I don’t know.  O’Reilly has a pattern of vehemently disagreeing with people when he considers their opinions to be part of the “secular progressive” movement.  I think the representative from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America group thought right when he said he guessed O’Reilly was disputing the number of people under bridges.  I also agreed when he noted that some veterans are worse off, sometimes only having cardboard boxes to sleep under.

I’m surprised that nobody on his mail segment was featured calling him out on that.  Perhaps people did send in mail, but he didn’t choose it.  I hope that he sets the record, because for a man who pounces on people who disrespect the troops, saying what he said sounds pretty disrespectful.  It’s ironic, since today he had a whole segment blasting a New York Times story about veterans coming back from Iraq being more likely to commit murders.

Our veterans sacrifice a lot to fight for us, and the idea that they can go homeless when they come back from fighting is disgraceful.

Posted by by Michael in Society, Television at 1: 42 AM | Add to del.icio.us | 2 Comments »

Well, comedians such as David Letterman, Jay Leno, and Conan O’Brian are set to come back tonight, the latter two without their writers.

It’s been eight weeks, and although television seems to be holding on, thanks in large part due to reality shows, it could use a boost.  We’re now out of holiday hiatus, and I think the networks know that they need to get back to work.

It’ll be interesting to see how Letterman compares to Leno and O’Brien.  I think Letterman’s material will be stronger.   We’ll see.

Off to watch it now.

Posted by by Michael in Television at 12: 19 AM | Add to del.icio.us | 3 Comments »

On the flip.  Spoilers!  ‘Nuff said.

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Television at 12: 42 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

*Clears throat*  Spoilers for the latest episode of Heroes under the cut.  You have been warned.

Continue reading »

Posted by by Michael in Television at 12: 30 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Coming to you once again in quasi-professional style from my school’s TV studio, in this week’s episode of Dymersion Video, I discuss the WGA strike, what might ultimately bring both sides back to negotiations, and what both sides might get out of it all.

[youtube RoOmVZdJjf8 nolink]

P.S. Two days after I presented this editorial live on the air of the campus station, the writers announced they’re going back to the negotiating table. The last time I gave an editorial, about Congress and the President, the President vetoed the water projects bill a day afterward. I don’t know if it’s intuition that these things are going to happen soon that makes me write editorials about them, or what, haha.

Posted by by Michael in Dymersion Video, Television at 3: 26 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Not that, according to some, he hasn’t already.

On his show tonight, he’s talking with who I believe is a psychologist (came in late, so not sure). His gripe this time is that two girls being chosen as cutest couple in some high school yearbook is inappropriate. The two girls are shown in a picture together, although the picture isn’t inappropriate in any way. They’re just facing the camera, with a one-armed hug.

The psychologist I think called him out on his true thoughts when she asked him whether he’d have a problem with a heterosexual couple doing the same thing. O’Reilly says that he have no problem with it, but does with this because it isn’t “socially accepted behavior.” Yet, O’Reilly also keeps saying that he thinks people should be keeping their sexual life behind closed doors. These two statements don’t match up. If he really thinks the latter thing, he should be saying that the school should abolish the cutest couple section altogether.

So, O’Reilly thinks that people should keep their sexual life private, but also has no problem with a heterosexual couple being picked as cutest couple, since it’s “socially accepted.” These statements, made within minutes of each other, don’t add up, O’Reilly!

Now, on the other hand, I have no problem with cutest couple sections, or who gets picked for them. It’s a non-issue, really. So, I don’t know why “Mr. I Don’t Have Problems with Homosexuals but Make Conflicting Statements” does.

Posted by by Michael in Society, Television at 11: 45 AM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

I think I’m beginning to feel how my friend Jess feels. She’s the producer of the newscast in the club I’m in. I’m the producer of the game show. Both of our shows will be taped within two days of each other, so any stress we might be feeling is somewhat similar in strength, only separated by two days.

Most of the stuff I have to do pertains to printing out various pieces of paper, which I know I can do. Others pertain to getting things, which I also know I can do. I’ve got a pretty decent schedule lined up, so as long as I follow that, everything on it will get done with plenty of time to spare.

Here’s what’s different…talent. I’ve got my host and co-host, and she’s got her anchors, all people who are very reliable and hard working. However, I’ve also got three additional wild cards to look after. I call them wild cards because I don’t have any names or faces to put to them yet. They are the contestants for the show, and right up until before we start our actual shoot, I don’t know if they’ll show up. It’s happened before; a set of contestants got drunk the previous night, and decided they’d have hangovers rather than acting responsible. And there’s been others.

Most contestants we’ve had are reliable people. They show up, play the game, and enjoy the free food. But there’s been the unreliable ones. What’s worse is that right now we have nobody on the roster, so that’s getting to me a bit. If I don’t find someone by Wednesday, I’m going to have to really go looking for people. Maybe not even Wednesday, because that day, I have class until around 6:30pm, but which time dinner at the dining hall is only on for another 45 minutes. If it comes to that, though, I’ll just suck it up and go looking there.

I hope not, though. Between the beginning of the semester and now, we’ve had plenty sign up. Though, three can’t do it this weekend, since they all want to play together. So, I think there’s still more than enough on the list, but if they can’t do it, or not enough, then we’ve gotta search.

Then once I have them, they actually have to show up. Not only that, but I’ve got two other things to worry about on game day: making sure everything looks good, and then (for this show), I’ve got to direct it.

I’m pretty good now, but as the week goes on, I expect my stress level to rise. This is my first one without any help at all, so yea, it’s stressful.

Off to plan!

Posted by by Michael in Personal Life, Television at 10: 07 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »

Whatever I was going to write about tonight, forget about that. Tonight, I’ll be live-blogging (well, as live as I can get, looking at my TV) the Democratic debate on MSNBC.

I must say, from just a few minutes of watching it, wow. This is unlike any other debate I’ve ever seen. The others so far (both Dems and Republicans) have been solid, stagnant, and just downright yawn-worthy. This one on the other hand, you have Democrats sniping at Democrats, and a pretty active exchange between the moderator and the candidate. Doesn’t seem as though there are many standing rules in this one.

Unfortunately, I think that Tim Russert (the moderator) is having some trouble controlling the candidates, which might not bode well later in the night, when they’re all feeling a little heated. They’ve already exchanged some pretty heated remarks. For example, Mike Gravel lambasted everybody but Dodd and Biden for voting against a resolution calling the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization, which Gravel is basically calling a prelude to a war with Iran.

Update 9:30pm EDT: Seems they’re a little more controlled on questions about if they’ll back Israel if they’d respond to a threat against their security. Also, I don’t think any of them are going to tonight, or ever, speak out against Israel, at least outright. They’d be dead-in-the water. if they do.

Update 9:32pm EDT: Richardson seems to be using the McCain rhetoric on the immigration issue. Didn’t really answer the question, which was about Sanctuary Cities, though. Good answer on it, Biden. The right answer, IMHO.

Obama didn’t really answer the question.

Don’t do it, Dodd……ooooh…not answering the question.

Kucinich isn’t afraid to answer Russert’s question…not my favorite answer, though.

Hilary kind of skirted around it. Not much different from Obama. Interesting explanation for why you wouldn’t stop Sanctuary Cities, though. She has a point that other illegals might not talk if they’d be afraid of being deported. They might be able to find other people, though? Who knows..

Gravel just went off on a tangent completely. Started talking about education or something. Didn’t even try blaming the feds.

Update 9:47PM: If Hilary’s plan really is what she says (I need to study it more before making a final decision), then kudos to that. It’s what I’ve been talking about here. Not exclusively either solution.

Update: 9:50PM: Edward’s solution sounds idealistic. I’m not sure what a President can do about his cabinet’s or VPs healthcare (probably little to nothing), but Congress isn’t going to vote out its own. Sounds good, but isn’t going to happen.

Update 9:54PM: Russert’s going after the candidate’s past management problems. This might get nasty. Don’t know if I like the accusatory tone he’s taking with them though. He’s supposed to be the moderator, not a judge.

Update 10:00PM: “Do you want your children read a book about same-sex princes?”

Edwards: Hard to tell his real answer. “I want my children to decide.”

Obama: More of less, I think, “Yes.”

Clinton: “Parents should decide. And all of you should vote for the hate crimes bill.”

Up to come…Social Security and Medicare.

Update 10:15PM: I’m sorry, I can’t really pay attention to all this economics talk, lol. Lets see…

Richardson: Don’t remove the cap. And the amendment to the constitution to balance the budget sounds stupid. The document is how to run the government, and to open up rights to people who are being denied them. Not for economic policy. That’s why we have a Congress and a process to create laws. Create a binding law in Congress to do it, not an amendment.

Edward’s argument on people making $50 million paying SS tax on only $97,000, while middle class people paying tax on all or almost all their money has some merit, though. Maybe what’d be better (and I though I heard Kucinich say this), but why not tax on a percentage? How about…just throwing out an arbitrary number…say 50%? That way, people making $20,000 are only paying taxes on 10, and people making $20 million, and paying on $10 million?

Of course, can’t do that, because the Republicans would say it’s redistributing the wealth, and vote against it.

Update 10:22PM: On to smoking now…Ban it in public places?

Hilary: Leave it local…no federal law.

Obama: The locals are doing a good job. If they can’t, then yes on federal.

Biden, Kucinich, Edwards and a couple others: YES!

Drinking age…lower?

Biden: No. Counterproductive, and there’s a problem with women drinking while carrying.

Dodd: No

Richardson: No. Need national commitment to rehabilitation.

Gravel: Yes.

Kucinich: Yes. Lets have confidence in young Americans.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards: No.

Lighting round time….lets see who gets under 30.

Obama: No.

Clinton: No.

Biden: He almost got by the challenge with a two word answer, lol.  And he got under it with a more complete one.

Kucinich: No.

Gravel: Yes.

Dodd: No.  So instead he’s going to go way over.

Obama again: Almost got it.

Richardson: No.  WAY OVER.

Ok, back to issues now.

Obama: We can’t get out magically.  Must do it in a way that makes sense.

And a weaving camera.  As a student of television production, that makes me laugh a little.

Update 10:42PM: I think Gravel is a little idealistic on wind power.  Never going to happen in so few years.

Sorry, kind of ignored the rest of the debate.  Was talking to someone on IM.  I like the last question about the baseball, though.

Posted by by Michael in Politics, Television at 9: 15 PM | Add to del.icio.us | No Comments »